ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Housing Benefit

Eilidh Whiteford: What estimate he has made of the number of households in Scotland affected by the new under-occupancy rules for housing benefit.

Steve Webb: The social sector size criteria, which will be introduced from April, will align housing benefit rules for those living in social sector accommodation with those already applied to claimants living in the private rented sector. We estimate that around 80,000 households in Scotland could be affected.

Eilidh Whiteford: The vast majority of tenants affected by this policy have no realistic prospect of finding a smaller, cheaper house. It also has many implications for devolved policy areas. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to show his respect for the Scottish Parliament by appearing in person before its Welfare Reform Committee?

Steve Webb: Obviously, the impact of housing benefit policy, which is a matter for the UK Parliament, will be different in different parts of the country. I have been to the Scottish Parliament and talked to the Deputy First Minister about welfare reform and we keep a dialogue open with our colleagues in Scotland.

Charlie Elphicke: Is it not the case that in Scotland and England as a whole getting on for 2 million families are in overcrowded accommodation? Is it not important that we think about their needs?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right to bring forward the voice of those in overcrowded accommodation, which is all too often not heard in this debate. At the same time as we are paying housing benefit for approaching a million spare bedrooms, a quarter of a million households in overcrowded accommodation would love the opportunity to live in a larger house.

Tom Greatrex: At the weekend, I spoke to one of my constituents in Scotland who has been a foster parent for 23 years and currently has four foster children, two of whom are in long-term placements. She fosters for one local authority and lives just over the border in another, which means that there is now considerable confusion about the discretionary payments. Would it not be much better if foster parents were exempted altogether?

Steve Webb: We recognise the special position of foster carers, which is why we allocated £5 million of discretionary housing payments so that local authorities can respond on a case-by-case basis to the needs of foster carers. We believe that that is a more flexible approach than a blanket exemption.

Ian Austin: At the same time as millionaires are getting a tax cut, hundreds of thousands of Britain’s poorest families, people with disabled children, the terminally ill and the bereaved will be made poorer or forced to move. That risks increasing the benefits bill, as most will go into the private rented sector where rents are higher. However, I want to ask for a clear assurance about the brave men and women serving in the forces. Will the Minister assure the House that they and their families will have their rent covered 100%, that they will not lose a penny while they are away from home and that they will not be affected at all? Yes or no?

Steve Webb: On the hon. Gentleman’s point about millionaires, I gather they are hankering after the halcyon days when they used to pay only 40% income tax and 18% capital gains tax. On his point about service personnel, let me make it absolutely clear that in the case of a couple with a young adult who is going off to serve with the forces, when that young person leaves the home to serve on the front-line we cease to assume that they are making a rent contribution. When that person goes off to serve, the housing benefit will, in general, go up.

Business Start-ups (Government Support)

Tobias Ellwood: What steps his Department is taking to support people who want to start their own business.

Michael Fabricant: What steps his Department is taking to support people who want to start their own business.

Mark Hoban: We believe that for many people self-employment is the best route out of unemployment. That is why we have introduced the new enterprise allowance and enterprise clubs, which have proved effective in helping people back into work.

Tobias Ellwood: Tourism is obviously a key industry in Bournemouth, but the digital economy is now the fastest-growing sector thanks to the work of Bournemouth university—so much so that Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole are now getting the nickname of the silicon beach of England. What more can be done to harness that interest and expertise through incubator units and start-ups?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should be capitalising on the skills of graduates of Bournemouth university to ensure that the digital economy spreads throughout the UK, including to silicon beach. I urge him to talk to his local council and to others to see what opportunities there are to bring forward premises that could be used for self-employment.

Michael Fabricant: Unemployment in Lichfield was running at 2.6 % in December, but that is still not good enough. What are the Government doing to provide an enterprise culture in practice, and how many people has my hon. Friend managed to get starting new businesses?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend will be aware that in Lichfield, 30 claimants have started with a business mentor. That has led to 20 businesses starting already. Some 8,000 new businesses have been started as a consequence of the new enterprise allowance, and I am pleased to announce that we are going to extend the availability of the new enterprise allowance to lone parents on income support and to some employment and support allowance claimants, because they are the sort of people who would be able to benefit from the new enterprise allowance and combine their existing responsibilities with starting a business for themselves.

Barry Sheerman: May I push the Minister on what is happening to people who want to start their own business if they pitch up at Jobcentre Plus? Is it not a scandal, the way that Jobcentre Plus recycles people? Giving them a job for one day removes the onus of finding them anything, such as starting their own business, or referring them to the Work programme. There is a tension between what is happening in Jobcentre Plus and what is happening in the Work programmes that does nobody any good.

Mark Hoban: To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about enterprise, when someone first makes a claim for jobseeker’s allowance, advisers talk to them and ask them whether they have an idea for a new business. Where they have a credible plan, they can be referred to a mentor, who will work with them to develop that business plan which, if successful, can lead to the new enterprise allowance. We see the importance of small businesses and of getting new start-ups going. Both the Work programme and Jobcentre Plus are focused on how they can help people set up a business themselves and start to recruit others.

Chris Bryant: Unfortunately, unemployment in the Rhondda is still growing. The figures for last November are higher than they were for the November before. One of the difficulties is that many of the people who have enough get up and go to set up a company get up and go elsewhere. How can we make sure that geographically isolated communities such as the Rhondda have a strong enough local economy for local entrepreneurs to prosper?

Mark Hoban: That is why measures such as the Work programme and the new enterprise allowance help lay those foundations. We need to see businesses moving to places such as the Rhondda and south Wales. I went to Swansea before Christmas to see the work that Amazon is doing there to boost employment in the
	local community—
	[Interruption.]
	Opposition Members may mock, but that created job opportunities that people would not otherwise have had.

Benefit Cap

Jackie Doyle-Price: Whether he plans to phase the introduction of the benefit cap.

Iain Duncan Smith: The benefit cap will be implemented from 15 April 2013 in Bromley, Croydon, Enfield and Haringey local authority areas. This will be a phased roll-out, with the remaining local authorities implementing the cap by the summer. This is in keeping with the way that the culture has changed in DWP. All the programmes that we are implementing are being rolled out on a staged basis. That includes changes to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, universal credit, personal independence payment and universal job match.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Can my right hon. Friend give me some reassurance that vulnerable people will not be affected by the cap? Can he also assure me that every effort is being made to support people back into work?

Iain Duncan Smith: Clearly, the cap and the principles behind the cap are supported by Government Members—that is, that people who are on benefits should not be earning more than those, for example, on average earnings. Those who are exempted are those who are entitled to working tax credit—because this is about getting people back to work, not stopping them doing that—war widows, widowers, those in receipt of disability living allowance/personal independence payment, attendance allowance, industrial injuries benefits, those on war disablement pension and compensation scheme and the support component of employment support allowance. There is also a 39-week grace period for those who fall unemployed so that they can get back to work without having to change their arrangements.

Sheila Gilmore: Despite what the Secretary of State has just said, it is clear that he sees the need now to delay an implementation that was previously seen as so important. What about those households where there is an adult receiving DLA and where there are parents who act as the carers? They are two separate units for benefit purposes. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that those households are not penalised?

Iain Duncan Smith: First, I must say to the hon. Lady that she is talking complete nonsense. I would much rather implement a programme learning the lessons as we implement it, than follow the practice of the previous Government, who had a period of collapsing programmes because they rushed them. This is the right way to do it and it is a shift in culture. On the second part of her question, under the Government that she supported—and it is still the case today—when someone becomes an adult, they effectively form their own household. We have discussed and are discussing those matters continuously, but households are formed when someone becomes an adult, and the previous Government never saw any reason to change that in all the years that they were in power.

Gavin Barwell: As the Secretary of State confirmed, Croydon will be one of the first places where this policy is rolled out. May I thank Lord Freud, who is the Minister responsible for welfare reform, and the housing Minister for meeting me to discuss this? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will work closely with my local authority to ensure that this important policy is implemented smoothly?

Iain Duncan Smith: I say to my hon. Friend and to all hon. Members and hon. Friends whose areas are affected by the roll-out that we are in deep discussions with all those councils. Jobcentre Plus will be working hugely with each of them, advising, helping and supporting them—in many senses, giving them more support than is necessarily likely to be the case when the national roll-out follows the pilot programmes.

Fiona Mactaggart: But as the roll-out happens, some of the areas that will be most affected are not the pilot areas—the first areas—but places such as my constituency, where people are already being moved out of London housing into Slough because there is relatively cheap housing there. Will the Secretary of State undertake that during the period when, as he said, he is taking time to introduce this, he will make revisions and talk to those authorities that are not the pilot authorities and are affected, as mine will be?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am glad to see that the hon. Lady realises the point of this whole process—to learn the lessons and to understand how best to implement the pilot programmes properly. Of course we will be talking to all local authorities, particularly those that are directly affected, and all other local authorities will listen to what they say. Despite the massive protestations of collapse and doom and gloom that we heard when we announced these proposals—we should remember that all local authorities have known about them for over a year—we now see statistics showing that there has not been the mass migration that was predicted. As for access to housing, housing benefit caseloads in London have risen by 5%, not fallen.

State Pensions

Michael McCann: How many people currently claiming a state pension will benefit from the new higher rate state pension under his proposals for a single tier scheme.

Steve Webb: People who reach state pension age before single-tier implementation will receive a state pension in line with existing rules. Existing pensioners already receive the triple lock designed to ensure that the pension rises by at least 2.5% each year. The single-tier reforms are designed to respond to the challenges facing working people today.

Michael McCann: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. Will he confirm that Britain’s 12 million current pensioners and 4 million future pensioners will not benefit at all from the Government’s proposed changes?

Steve Webb: To be clear, today’s pensioners have benefited hugely from our decision to reverse 30 years of falling value of the state pension for those 12 million pensioners, to whom we are now paying a pension that is a bigger share of national average earnings than at any time in the past 20 years.

Amber Rudd: Women often take a few years off to look after children or elderly relatives. Will the Minister reassure me that women who do that will not be penalised and will also be eligible for the single-tier pension?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right. For those who retire under the new regime, years spent some decades ago bringing up children, which were not properly protected for state pension rights, will be so under the single-tier arrangements.

Gregg McClymont: It has been a busy few weeks in pensions world. The Minister will be aware that the Office of Fair Trading has recently announced that it is to undertake an inquiry into the private pensions market. This follows a Labour campaign for just such an inquiry. The Minister’s response to our campaign was to accuse the Labour party of scaremongering on pension charges. Now that the OFT has decided to undertake this inquiry, may I encourage the Minister to heed another Labour campaign call and lift the restrictions on NEST as soon as possible so that it can provide low-cost, high-quality pensions to everyone who wishes to save with it?

Mr Speaker: We look forward, I am sure, to hearing about NEST, whatever that may be.

Steve Webb: Thank you Mr Speaker. It will be a house- hold name soon, I hope.
	We worked very closely with the OFT in the run-up to its inquiry, which will look at whether there are problems in this area. It is very welcome, and we will be working very closely with the OFT as it carries it out. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Labour introduced constraints on NEST—the National Employment Savings Trust—and we are consulting on whether to lift them.

Anne McIntosh: When my hon. Friend presented these proposals last week, it was indicated that there would be a net cost to public sector workers in relation to the higher-rate state pension. Is he able to put a figure on that additional cost?

Steve Webb: Yes. Those who work in the public sector will pay the full rate of national insurance, which is an extra 1.4%, but they will build up state pension at the full rate. Crudely speaking, they will pay about a tenth extra in national insurance but build up, potentially, up to a third extra in state pension, which will be a very good deal.

Disability Living Allowance

Chi Onwurah: How many reassessments of claims for disability living allowance have taken place in the past six months.

Esther McVey: About 280,000 disability living allowance claims have been reassessed over the past six months. Reassessments are comprised of super-sessions, where someone reports changes in their circumstances; renewals of fixed-term awards, which are by far the biggest; and reconsiderations.

Chi Onwurah: A constituent of mine had to wait two years to have his DLA appeal reassessed, causing him immense hardship. They found in his favour. He is not alone. Newcastle citizens advice bureau and the Newcastle welfare rights service each see two or three new cases of DLA delays every single week. How will the Minister ensure that the roll-out of the personal independence payment will not lead to the same vulnerable groups being subjected to more delays?

Esther McVey: I have the figures from 2007-08 and they are exactly the same as those for DLA this year, whether that applies to appeals or to people wanting to make new claims. That was the main reason for introducing PIP. It is about clarity and certainty for both the claimant and the assessors, so that we can reduce any delays in reassessments and appeals.

Paul Maynard: The Minister will be aware that the opportunity to have one’s DLA reconsidered at the end of a fixed-term award is, actually, not an opportunity to cut the DLA. Will she join me in welcoming the fact that more than 12,000 people in the past year have had their DLA award increased at the end of a fixed term? Is that not something that the Opposition ought to bear in mind when they criticise us for cutting DLA?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is correct. If people are being reassessed or if their term has come to an end, they will be reviewed according to their needs now and many people will get an increased award.

Anne McGuire: On 13 December 2012, the Minister announced that there would be
	“a significantly slower reassessment timetable”—[Official Report, 13 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 464.]
	for the PIP process—the replacement for DLA—which I welcomed. However, did that significantly slower reassessment timetable impact on the contracts that were signed in August 2012 with Capita and Atos on a different timetable? Will there be any significant financial reassessments as a result of the new timetable? Did she consider whether the changes were significant enough to necessitate re-tendering the contract?

Esther McVey: We did indeed slow down the roll-out of the reassessments, having listened to the consultation and what various organisations and charities said, but we did not consider that to be significant change to the contract, so we are working closely with both Atos and Capita to ensure the smooth running of the roll-out.

Universal Credit

Jonathan Reynolds: What assessment he has made of the preparations for the introduction of universal credit; and if he will make a statement.

Iain Duncan Smith: Early roll-out of universal credit begins with a pathfinder in April 2013 in the Greater Manchester and Cheshire region, including the jobcentre in Ashton-under-Lyne. I am aware that a number of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be involved as a result, as will other Members’ constituents, and my Department will write to all of them to invite them to discuss the roll-out.

Jonathan Reynolds: The Secretary of State is right to say that my local authority of Tameside is one of the pathfinder areas. Conversations that I have had with officers from that authority and the wider public infrastructure show that there is a lot of concern about the lack of detail and support from the Department of Work and Pensions with regard to the implementation. Given that this is just a few months away and is a cause of serious concern, will the Secretary of State reassure me and people in my local area that the Government are on top of this and that implementation will take place as planned?

Iain Duncan Smith: It will—I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. We are discussing this at every level with the local authorities concerned. The process will start at a jobcentre in each of the areas I have mentioned on 29 April, and that will start bringing in childless couples to claim universal credit, rather than jobseeker’s allowance. Over that period, once people are captured into the universal credit system, they will not go back on to jobseeker’s allowance, so a lot of tax-credit people who fall unemployed will move on to universal credit. We are in deep discussions with the regions.[Official Report, 31 January 2013, Vol. 557, c. 6MC.]

Jesse Norman: The previous Government’s record in commissioning and managing large IT projects was a catalogue of failure. Have my right hon. Friend and his colleagues been able to learn anything from that in how they have designed universal credit?

Iain Duncan Smith: All such programmes under Governments of any hue have always carried risk, because they are about change. The DWP benefits systems, including tax credits, are very complicated and often contradictory. Of course what we are doing involves risk, but we are trying to manage that risk. The best way to do so is to ensure that we introduce it stage by stage, so that we can recognise where we need to learn lessons, correct what is difficult or going wrong and ensure that we roll out the system properly.

Stephen Doughty: On Friday, I visited a housing association in my constituency that is greatly concerned about the introduction of universal credit, as well as the bedroom tax and the benefits cap. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on the finances of housing associations from the possible increases in rent arrears as a result of his Government’s policies?

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not believe that there will be an impact. [Interruption.] The Opposition should look to their own record and the housing benefit mess that they left us. They left a rising bill that had doubled in nearly 10 years, so it would be better to have a little less
	from them. We are trying to ensure that those who are paying this money are not allowed to slip into debt for any great length of time. That matter is being discussed with housing associations and we are making good progress on it. I believe that this approach will help people who are trying to get back into work enormously, rather than their being treated as though they are children who have to have all their bills paid for them.

Ian Swales: A constituent of mine who did a few extra hours at Tesco before Christmas faces losing her income support and carer’s allowance for a whole month and will be much worse off. Does the Secretary of State agree that that shows the injustice of the system left by the previous Government, and that universal credit is desperately needed?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is exactly the point. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The mess of all the chaotic benefits left by the last Government, many of which contradicted each other, meant that people were not incentivised to go to work for anything more than 16 hours in some cases. Many people who could have got themselves out of poverty by working did not do so because they were penalised by the system. That is the shame of what the last Government left behind.

Kate Green: Will the Secretary of State say what resources are being allocated to in-work conditionality for part-time workers under universal credit, given that the Department has acknowledged that there is no evidence nationally or internationally of what works to sustain people in employment and enable them to progress?

Iain Duncan Smith: The Department is looking closely at how we can assist people to take more work while on universal credit. We do not have the final results of that, but I am happy to sit down with the hon. Lady at any time and discuss her concerns. She is right about one thing: rather than parking people on a specific number of hours, universal credit will allow people to work more hours and get more money, rather than losing it, thereby getting themselves and their children, if they have any, out of poverty.

Welfare Spending

Mel Stride: What steps he is taking to control welfare spending.

Rob Wilson: What steps he is taking to control welfare spending.

Alun Cairns: What steps he is taking to control welfare spending.

Ben Gummer: What steps he is taking to control welfare spending.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Government have undertaken major reforms to limit Britain’s welfare spending, which over successive years ran out of control. Under the last Government, welfare bills had increased by 60% by 2010, costing every household in Britain an extra
	£3,000 a year. Last week, the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill was passed by this House. It will save £1.9 billion, restoring fairness for taxpayers in the process.

Mel Stride: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that he has made in controlling welfare expenditure, particularly given that under the previous Government, the costs rose by no less than 60%. However, there is always more to do. Will he outline what we are doing to clamp down on welfare fraud?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right about the situation that we were left. We are already bearing down on the problem. The figures show that we are making inroads into welfare fraud. Universal credit will have a much better record in this area, because we will be able to use real-time information to check up on who is in work and what they are earning on a monthly basis, rather than having to wait until the end of somebody’s time on tax credits at the end of a year and reconcile the figures over a long period. Under the current tax credits system, £5 billion has been written off as a result of fraud and error, and it looks like another £5 billion will also be written off.

Rob Wilson: As the Secretary of State has said, the previous Government increased welfare spending by 60%. There was not, however, a 60% increase in people getting jobs, or a 60% reduction in child poverty. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should not measure the success of our welfare system by how much we are spending on it?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend: we should measure our welfare system by how soon it provides support to those who need it and how it supports those who can be moved into a more productive form of life. The previous system trapped people into dependency on welfare with rising bills and, ultimately, a very poor record on child poverty.

Alun Cairns: I strongly welcome the welfare reforms that the Government are introducing, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the control he is bringing to expenditure. Does he agree, however, that the provision of some of the benefits, and the terms under which they will be received, may need to be reviewed? If the parent of a young child with a complicated medical condition needs to stay in hospital for longer than 84 days, they may fall foul of the carer’s allowance. Will the Secretary of State agree to look at that?

Iain Duncan Smith: I understand fully what my hon. Friend is saying and, of course, the parent who is caring for a child in hospital has 84 days in which that child may be in hospital. I also recognise what he is saying about broken-up periods in hospital should someone have a condition that takes them back to hospital again. I would be happy to sit down with him, and anybody else, to look at the issue and discuss whether there are ways to rectify it.

Ben Gummer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the reforms he is bringing in. Social mobility and poverty were manifestly not improved by 60% during the previous Government’s regime, although the bill went up by 60%. However, people such as my constituent,
	Mr Martin Wilsher, who is visually impaired, still have concerns about some of the reforms being introduced. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend provide to Mr Wilsher?

Iain Duncan Smith: First, as my hon. Friend knows, this is about the disability living allowance and the personal independence payment, and the reality is that DLA will not be included in the changes. More than that, it is important to note that through discussions over the introduction of PIP, a good and warm welcome has finally come from the Royal National Institute of Blind People. After recent discussions it said that the PIP criteria include a number of
	“significant improvements for blind and partially sighted people.”
	The changes we are making to PIP, after guidance from that organisation and others, will help people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent.

Jessica Morden: Last week in Westminster Hall Ministers made great play of the savings that the Government might expect from the bedroom tax. In Wales there is a chronic shortage of smaller houses, so why will the Secretary of State not admit that those who are hit by this cruel policy in Wales will have to go into the insecure private sector where rents will be higher and local housing allowance rates will cost more?

Iain Duncan Smith: What the hon. Lady and her party presided over when they were in power was a complete mess in housing—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Members to shout like a bunch of discombobulated monkeys bouncing up and down on the Benches; the reality is that their housing benefit record left many thousands of families unable to find housing because they were in a queue, while others occupied housing that had far too many rooms. We have to put that right, and that is what we are doing. The Labour party never did that when it was in government.

David Winnick: Although I am not a vindictive person—at least, I hope I am not—I would like to see the Secretary of State and his colleagues, plus the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, try to live, just for six months, on the income of those who have been adversely affected as a result of the cuts carried out by the Government over the past two years. Try and live on that sort of income; see what it is like not having any recourse to private income.

Iain Duncan Smith: I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and the reality is that none of these decisions is taken lightly by this Government—indeed, any Government. I remind him, however, about all those people who, because of the mess in which the previous Government left the finances, have found themselves out of work or with incomes falling. When he talks about vulnerable people, it is this Government who have increased the pension and made it better for some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Helen Goodman: Under the current rules, citizens from some eastern European countries are entitled to housing benefit and working
	tax credit, but not to income-related jobseeker’s allowance. Will the Secretary of State set out for the House what the position of these people will be once universal credit, which will wrap all the benefits up together, has been introduced?

Iain Duncan Smith: It is our intention to try to ensure that under universal credit the loose access to benefits that has been enjoyed by far too many people coming into this country who have no right to them will actually be limited. I will be able to brief the House much better on that as and when we complete the rules on it.

Russell Brown: Obviously the Secretary of State has made mention of the benefits uprating being capped at a 1% increase. Has he had any discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about what that will do to growth or about the impact that it will have on the economy over the next three years?

Iain Duncan Smith: I have lots of discussions with the Chancellor on a regular basis, all very amicable. Of course we have to discuss this in a wider context, but the hon. Gentleman and his party look at this in a very narrow context. They say, “Well, you withdraw this money from people on benefits and that immediately has an effect on the high street.” If that were all that we were doing, I would agree with him, but it is not. There is a major programme for investment in industry and a huge capital spending programme, not least as will be announced in a statement later today. These will have an even bigger effect, in a positive way, on spending in the high street.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Easington)

Grahame Morris: What estimate he has made of trends in the number of people in Easington constituency claiming jobseeker’s allowance in 2013.

Mark Hoban: About 3,400 people in Easington are currently claiming jobseeker’s allowance, which is up 340 on the year, but last week we saw a fall in the number of people in the north-east claiming JSA. Since the general election, there has been an increase of 35,000 in the number of people in work in the north-east.

Grahame Morris: The Government have stopped publishing the number of unemployed people in each constituency chasing each vacancy. As I have impressed on Ministers before, and I will say it again, the issue for us in Easington, unlike in Lichfield, is joblessness—a lack of jobs. Will the Minister give consideration to publishing those data, which would be useful to potential employers and inward investors?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I was born and brought up in his constituency, so I well understand the challenges that Easington faces. We do want to encourage more people to invest in the area, and that is why I am keen to commend the work that has been done with the East Durham area partnership
	to encourage more people into work in Easington. We will look at how we can recommence publication of vacancy statistics shortly.

Stephen Timms: Ministers often say that they have stopped people on Government schemes appearing in the labour market statistics as “in employment”. But recent analysis shows that of the claimed 500,000 increase in employment over the past 12 months, 214,000 people are in fact on Government schemes and mostly still claiming JSA. What is going on?

Mr Speaker: The question is exclusively on Easington, but the right hon. Gentleman has made his own point with delphic confidence.

Mark Hoban: What is happening—and it happened under the previous Government—is that these figures are drawn up in line with international rules. I agree with him that it is inappropriate, and that is why I wrote several months ago to the Office for National Statistics to ask it to change that. Only one in 20 of the additional jobs created since the general election are down to Government schemes, and the right hon. Gentleman should be commending the number of private sector jobs being created that have helped people get back into work. That is why we have record numbers of people in work.

Housing Benefit

Stephen Hepburn: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on low-income families of planned changes to housing benefit eligibility in respect of under-occupancy in the social rented sector.

Steve Webb: Our impact assessment shows that of the 3.4 million social sector tenants receiving housing benefit, up to 660,000 could potentially be affected by this measure.

Stephen Hepburn: Do this Government ever get fed up of hammering the poor of this country? Punishing the poor seems to be the mandate that is running this Government. In my constituency, 2,000 households will lose anything up to 25% because of this bedroom tax. Will the Minister change this callous measure now, or will he wait until it becomes this Government’s poll tax and comes back to haunt them?

Steve Webb: If we leave aside the issue of people in his constituency who are living in over-crowded accommodation, who would very much like the opportunity to live in one of these houses, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that for many years under Labour people who rented in the private rented sector were not allowed a spare bedroom. Why is it fair not to allow private renters a spare bedroom, but to allow social tenants a spare bedroom?

Philip Davies: Does the Minister agree that downsizing when people can no longer afford accommodation or when accommodation becomes too big is something that many people have had to do for
	many years? Would it not be perverse if the only people protected from what is a fact of life for many were those dependent on the state for their housing?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right that ensuring that we make the best use of the scarce resource that is the social housing stock does involve people moving to smaller accommodation later on in life—although not pensioners, who we have exempted. Many of the best housing associations and councils are managing their housing stock better in response to this change.

David Wright: The bedroom tax will have an impact on thousands of people in Telford. Many might want to move to smaller accommodation, but it is not available and the Government know it is not available. The policy is designed to penalise people—it is nothing to do with the housing market.

Steve Webb: There is a danger that this is viewed in a very static way. Many of the best housing associations are looking at groups of constituents, some of whom are over-occupying and are overcrowded, and are moving people around to create space. In the longer term, we need a housing stock that better meets the needs of people on the waiting list, and it is time that successive Governments addressed that.

John Leech: Because of the shameful under-investment in social housing by the previous Government, there are simply not enough properties for people to downsize to. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the number of families who will end up moving to smaller, more expensive accommodation and end up receiving more in housing benefit?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right: successive Governments have failed to build enough affordable housing. It is worth stressing that moving is one option, but only one option, for those in work. Just two or three extra hours on the minimum wage would cover this deduction. There are a range of options—going into work, taking in a lodger or sub-letting—and good housing associations are working with their tenants to achieve best outcomes.

Carer's Allowance

Barbara Keeley: What estimate she has made of the number of unpaid carers who will lose carer’s allowance as a result of the benefit cap.

Esther McVey: No one loses carer’s allowance as a result of the benefit cap for, as the hon. Lady may know, the cap is applied to overall household income.

Barbara Keeley: What advice would the Minister give to the 5,000 carers who, as the Government’s impact assessment states, will lose an average of £105 a week through the operation of the benefit cap? Is she suggesting that they give up caring, look for work and ask social services to find a care placement for the person they
	care for? Why have the Government not thought of exempting carers, who do a wonderful job, from the benefit cap in recognition of their unpaid caring work?

Esther McVey: I would not seek to tell anybody what they should do. We seek to work closely with people to enable and support them as best we can. We are doing that by trebling the discretionary payment to help people into work, because if they are on working tax credits, they will be exempt from the benefit cap.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can tell the House that
	“carers caring for an adult disabled child or other adult relative could see their benefits capped, because the DLA of the people they care for is not considered to be in the same benefit package or ‘household’ as the carers’–even if they are living together.”
	This is a direct quote from Carers UK. Does the Minister agree with Carers UK that it is confusing, complicated and simply unfair to protect some carers and not others?

Esther McVey: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the definition of “household” has been in place for some time, so what has happened has always been in place. As the Secretary of State said, there are many exemptions from the cap. Working with the discretionary payment, we can work together to get this right.

Long-term Unemployment

Emma Reynolds: What steps he is taking to address long-term unemployment.

Mark Hoban: There are a range of measures in place to tackle long-term unemployment, including the Work programme. Last week’s unemployment figures show a fall of 5,000 in the number of people who have been unemployed for more than a year, and a fall of 10,000 in the number of people who have been unemployed for more than two years.

Emma Reynolds: According to the House of Commons Library, there has been a 45% increase in the number of people unemployed over the last 12 months. When will the Government get a grip on this issue, and why will they not take up Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee?

Mark Hoban: When the hon. Lady’s party was in government, the number of people in long-term unemployment doubled, but this month we have seen a reduction in the numbers of people unemployed for more than one year and for more than two years. I would have thought she would be welcome that. It demonstrates that ours are the right actions to tackle the problems of long-term unemployment.

Margot James: Employment in the west midlands has increased by 4.3% in the past 12 months and the average time spent on jobseeker’s allowance is just three months. What can my hon. Friend do to bring all Work programme providers up to the standard of the best providers, such as EOS in the black country?

Mark Hoban: I, too, have seen the excellent work that EOS does to improve people’s chances of getting into work—it has some innovative programmes—and I am relentless in pushing Work programme providers to improve their performance so that we get people into work. Last month’s unemployment figures are testament to the benefits of our actions.

Topical Questions

Catherine McKinnell: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: Today, I welcome the millionth jobseeker signed up to the universal jobmatch service, launched before Christmas, which is revolutionising how claimants look for work—with online job searching and matching through DWP on a scale never seen before. The system works 24/7 to find jobs that fit with people’s skills, location and working patterns, which means that their CV works for them even while they sleep. The service harnesses new technology to improve their prospects, and was launched on time and on budget.

Catherine McKinnell: It would appear that about 430,000 women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953 will not qualify for the new pension, while men of the same age will. What does the Minister have to say to the 1,700 women in Newcastle potentially affected by this unfair situation?

Steve Webb: Those women will, of course, receive a state pension up to two years before a man born on the same day and have the option of being treated in the same way as a man—for example, they could defer their pension for two years and get an extra 20% for deferral. That is an option. We cannot bring the measure forward, however, because the occupational pension sector needs time. The only way we could treat men and women identically would be to delay until 2019, but if we did that many more women would be excluded.

Caroline Dinenage: Given that one in six of the adult population is functionally illiterate, what training is provided to jobcentre staff to help identify and signpost adults with literacy issues?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point: poor literacy and numeracy are big barriers to employment. For that reason, personal advisers in jobcentres are trained to identify signs and to signpost people to appropriate course providers. Fareham college in the constituency adjacent to hers is one such provider, but I am sure there are other local providers.

Liam Byrne: The Minister will have read about the cases of Becky Bell raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and of Angel Hooper, the disabled child whose parents have been told that they will lose £20 a week because her specially adapted room will not be shared with another family member. They are two of the 660,000 families being told they will have to fork out
	extra or move under the bedroom tax. Will he confirm how many one-bedroom properties will be needed for people to downsize to as the bedroom tax kicks in?

Steve Webb: You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that discretionary housing payments are being made available with a specific focus on the needs of severely disabled people—for example, where a house has been adjusted to reflect the needs of a disabled person. We have allocated money to local authorities precisely to cater for those whom it would be inappropriate to expect to move.

Liam Byrne: The Minister knows that 600,000 people will now need a one-bedroom flat, yet the Department’s own assessment states that there are insufficient properties to enable tenants to move to accommodation of an appropriate size, even if they want to move. From the beginning of April, therefore, people in social housing will face a £14 a week extra bill, when those on £1 million a year face a £2,000 a week tax cut. How can the Minister justify this to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who said that benefit cuts at a time of tax cuts of this order would send the clearest signal that
	“Conservatives were looking after vested interests: not so much a dog whistle—more a full blown trumpet.”?

Steve Webb: Given that the right hon. Gentleman mentions taxation, I will risk straying on to it, but quite why today’s millionaires would rather have our 45p rate than his 40p rate, or our 28% capital gains tax, rather than his 18% rate is beyond me.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, households will respond in a range of ways to the measure on under-occupation: moving is simply one of them; taking in a lodger or boarder, sub-letting, working or working more hours are others, and there are discretionary payments for those in most need.

Penny Mordaunt: Is the Minister aware that the Conservatives in Wales have introduced the post of shadow Minister for older people? In the light of that, will he update the House on the work of the UK advisory forum on ageing in getting a co-ordinated approach to older people’s issues across Whitehall?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for flagging up the work of the UK advisory forum, which I jointly chair with the Minister for care services at the Department of Health. It enables us to bring Departments beyond those two together with older people’s organisations, and we are looking to expand the role of that group.

Debbie Abrahams: More than 2.3 million people with disabilities currently live in poverty. Given that fewer than half of all disabled people are in work, that we have a contracting economy and that at least £6.7 billion is being cut from disability benefits, how many more disabled people do the Government estimate will be living in poverty at the end of this Parliament?

Esther McVey: Let me say straight away that I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s figures at all.
	What I can tell her is that £50 billion is spent every year on support and benefits, and that will continue. We are spending £13 billion a year on disability living allowance, and we will continue spending that when people are moved on to the personal independence payment. We are doing a lot and we are protecting the most vulnerable, as acknowledged around the world.

Philip Hollobone: The winter fuel allowance is a non-contributory benefit, yet every year we spend tens of millions of pounds on winter fuel allowance for pensioners who live abroad in far pleasanter climates than our own. Is there nothing that the Government can do within the terms of the EU directive to ensure that such payments cease and that pensioners in this country benefit from that money?

Iain Duncan Smith: This is a matter that we are looking into. As my hon. Friend knows very well, it is caught under European law; however, the recent judgment that came out said that we had to make these payments. There might be other ways we may be able to limit that exposure, and I will be able to let my hon. Friend know later in the day.

Stephen McCabe: Teacher Dawn Lewis in my constituency is one of 600 women who will lose out because of the perverse pension rule that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) drew attention to earlier. Is the Minister at all worried that this looks like yet another coalition attack on working women?

Steve Webb: Just to be clear, we are talking about women who draw a pension significantly earlier than men born on the same day. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head; that is a statement of fact. It is the case that present pensioners do not fall under the new system. I have explained why we cannot bring it forward, but I am delighted that the Opposition’s principal criticism is that we are not introducing our reform quickly enough.

Simon Hughes: On the Government’s benefit changes for housing, foster carers have expressed their concern to me that they might be inhibited from doing their good work by the extra penalty for having a spare room. Can the Secretary of State or a Minister give me some reassurance that the amount of fostering that we currently have—and need—can continue without financial disadvantage?

Iain Duncan Smith: We are of course working closely with the Minister responsible at the Department for Education—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson)—whose record on this is unimpeachable, as my right hon. Friend knows. He also should recognise that we have laid aside £5 million specifically to help with foster carers in the situation he described. However, we are in discussions with local authorities, county councils and the Department for Education about how best the money can be used to ensure that it specifically helps foster carers in this area, so that they suffer no hardship whatever, but can continue, and we can encourage more people to become foster carers.

Emma Reynolds: Further to the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), I still do not understand why the Government are, in effect, targeting and discriminating against nearly 500,000 women, 500 of whom are in my constituency—one of them is my mother—or why they think this is fair, given that men of exactly the same age will get a higher pension. It is not fair, but is it legal and will the Government reconsider their proposals?

Steve Webb: Just to be clear, when the hon. Lady says that a man born on the same day will get a higher pension, that is simply not necessarily the case. People are wrongly comparing the £144 flat rate with the £107 basic pension, plus a variable SERPS—state earnings-related pension scheme—pension, so the figure might be higher, but it might be lower. The new system is not more generous overall than the one it replaces. All I would say, through the hon. Lady to her mother, is that a man born on the same day as her mother will draw his pension significantly later, so she will have the benefit of that pension for perhaps up to two years more than a man born on the same day.

Phillip Lee: Last Friday, I visited the A4e offices in Bracknell, and it was encouraging to hear the staff there giving support to my constituents who were seeking to set up their own business. In addition to providing that support, what are the Government doing to extend the availability of new enterprise allowances so that more people in my constituency can start their own business?

Mark Hoban: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has seen for himself the work that A4e is doing in Bracknell. We need more people to have the opportunity to set up their own business, particularly lone parents and those with health conditions. That is why I am pleased to announce that we are extending the availability of the new enterprise allowance to lone parents who receive income support and to some employment and support allowance claimants.

Lindsay Roy: As several of my hon. Friends have already said, almost 500,000 women aged between 59 and 60 will not qualify for the new state pension while men of the same age will do so. How does the Minister justify penalising 700 such women in my constituency in that way?

Steve Webb: Just to be clear, the women the hon. Gentleman is talking about will get exactly the pension that they thought they were going to get before we made our announcement, and they will get it on the day on which they thought they were going to get it. We have changed nothing at all. However, under the present system, if those women want to defer a pension for two years, they will get that on the current rules plus 20%, which is a generous rate of deferral.

Jane Ellison: Will the Minister confirm that, contrary to the comments made by some Labour Members, a record number of women are in work at the moment?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there are more women in work than ever before. That is testament to the flexibility of the labour market, which allows more women to work, either part time or full time.

Teresa Pearce: Given the inability of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to write to all parents affected by the recent child benefit changes, I have serious concerns about the real-time information that will need to be delivered if universal credit is going to work and succeed. In September, the Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, said that 99.8% of the data sent by employers had been matched, yet a parliamentary answer from the Exchequer Secretary on 17 December revealed data from the same month showing that only 71% had been matched. Which Minister has got it right?

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady is confusing two answers. The answer that she received from the Treasury—from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—was to do with checking against the references of the accredited companies. That was a process that was looking for 80%, and it was achieving just over 75%. What my hon. Friend the Minister was saying was that the number of companies being brought on to the pilot was exactly in line with the number that is there. I can promise the hon. Lady that, if she really wants me to, I will give her a written answer to that question as well.

John Redwood: Is the Secretary of State looking favourably on the idea that workers coming here from Europe to earn a living should have to establish a contribution record over a reasonable period of time before becoming eligible to receive benefits?

Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) and others are engaged on this matter with our European partners. We do not think it right that somebody who has made no contribution to this country should be able to walk in here on day one and take benefits, as is being proposed. I promise my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that I will not allow that to happen.

William Bain: The Minister has failed to justify to the 430,000 women in the rest of the country, or to the 500 women in my constituency, born between 5 April 1952 and 6 July 1953 why they will receive a state pension of up to £1,900 a year less than a man born on the same day as they were.

Steve Webb: To risk repetition, I say to the hon. Gentleman not only that those women will receive potentially up to two years more but that, on average, the new system is costing no more than the one it is replacing. So it is simply not the case that we are taking new pensioners and spending more money on them than we were in the system that we are replacing.

Stephen Lloyd: As the Minister knows, concern has been expressed recently following the conversion from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. It relates to mobility-impaired people and the change from 50 metres to 20 metres. Will she confirm that she has listened carefully to the points raised about converting the guidelines to ensure that the words “reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a timely manner” will appear in the regulation, so that the people who are anxious about this can be reassured?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is correct to suggest that we have been in discussions about this. At the moment, the words “reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a timely manner” are in the contracts and in the guidance, and we are looking to see whether they can be put into the regulation, but that will happen only if that achieves what it is intended to achieve.

Andrew Gwynne: DWP research suggests that over 42% of people affected by the bedroom tax will not be able to pay the difference and will go into arrears instead. Given that DWP research, how many people does the Minister or the Secretary of State expect to lose their homes as a result of these crazy policies?

Iain Duncan Smith: We do not expect anybody to lose their homes as a result, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his Government sat for a large number of years without building any houses, watching housing benefit rise and people sitting on waiting lists to get houses, so crocodile tears from them now they are in opposition are a waste of time. We will sort the problem out, and I hope they will never be in government for a long time to come.

Mark Pritchard: Most EU migration has been of real benefit to Britain, but may I ask the Secretary of State what plans he is putting in place to stop Bulgarian and Romanian migrants claiming welfare benefits from 1 January 2014, thus driving up the welfare bill for UK taxpayers?

Iain Duncan Smith: We inherited a situation in which there were rules guarding against that happening to those who come in. To put the record straight, habitual residence tests and other rules require that those who come into this country are involved in some form of work. My hon. Friend also knows that European legislation is before us at the moment that tries to allow those coming in to claim benefits on day one. We are utterly opposed to that: we are fighting it, and it is not my intention to see it happen in any way.

High Speed Rail

Patrick McLoughlin: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our railways.
	Investing in transport infrastructure is not a choice. To create jobs and to rebalance our economy we need better roads, better airports and better trains—and High Speed 2 is a central part of that investment. It will be an engine for growth throughout the country, which is why I am today announcing our initial preferred route north from Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester.
	These new services will reach eight out of 10 of our largest cities: Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, as well as Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. In all, 18 cities and many more towns, too, will be served by HS2 services. It will be completely integrated with the existing rail network; it will bring people and businesses together; it will create an estimated 100,000 jobs; and it has the backing of businesses and cities across Britain. We will introduce legislation for the first phase in this Parliament and legislate for the second in the next one. Construction is set to begin in 2017 and the first trains will run in 2026. The second phase will be open fully by 2033.
	I would like to make three further points. The first is about the need for the line. HS2 will be the first main line to be built north of London for almost 120 years. Some say we do not need another, but the truth is that we are already good at squeezing the most out of our present Victorian railway network—and yes, we will get even more out of it in the coming years with the massive investment we have already announced. We are electrifying 800 miles of track, and building Crossrail and the northern hub upgrade. These will help to keep us going for the next decade or two, but what then?
	Rail passenger numbers have doubled over the last 15 years, and demand will keep growing. The west coast main line is filling up. There is not enough space for all the commuters, freight trains and inter-city trains that need to use it. That is why, after very careful consideration, I am publishing my initial preferences for phase 2 of HS2. The case for going ahead rests on the capacity it will provide and on the new connections it will create. It is not just about faster trains to London, but about changing the way in which our great cities work and work with each other, providing easy links on journeys that are difficult today, giving muscle to the economies of the cities beyond London and producing an estimated £2 in economic benefit for every £1 spent.
	Frequently, colleagues in this House call for better services to their local stations—they are right to ask for them—and High Speed 2 is part of the solution. Creating free space on existing routes will allow better services to places such as Milton Keynes, and more trains for commuters in areas such as Staffordshire, Leeds and Manchester. I am determined to ensure that the benefits of HS2 run much wider than the places directly served by the new line.
	Let me turn to my second point. The detail of the route I am announcing today follows the Government’s announcements last year about phase 1 between London and Birmingham. On the western leg from Birmingham to Manchester, I propose two new high-speed stations.
	The first will be in the heart of Manchester, alongside the existing station at Manchester Piccadilly, allowing easy connections to places such as Salford, Stockport and Bolton and a journey time to London of just one hour eight minutes, down from over two hours today. The second station will be at Manchester airport, giving direct access to the wider Cheshire area.
	HS2 will also serve Crewe via a dedicated link, and high-speed trains will continue on the existing railway to Liverpool, Warrington and Runcorn, which will also benefit greatly from reduced journey times. Further north, near Wigan, HS2 will connect with the west coast main line. High-speed trains can then continue at regular speeds to places such as Preston, Carlisle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. I am working with counterparts in Scotland on their aspirations for high-speed rail. I have already set out a long-term ambition to get journeys to Scotland below three hours.
	Turning to the eastern leg, we will construct three new stations to bring people and businesses in the east midlands and Yorkshire closer to Birmingham, the north-east and London. The east midlands station will be located between Nottingham and Derby at Toton, and links will be upgraded to provide fast access to both. The second station will be at Sheffield Meadowhall, which already has good connections that can be improved further, allowing it to serve all of Sheffield and south Yorkshire.
	The third station will be located in the centre of Leeds alongside the South Bank area. As with the western leg, there will be a connection from HS2 on to the existing rail network. A connection to the east coast main line, just nine miles from York, will allow the north-east to benefit, too, with London to York taking just one hour 23 minutes and London to Newcastle just two hours 18 minutes.
	Finally, a decision on how best to serve Heathrow will be taken after the outcome of the Airports Commission has been considered by the Government. From day one, however, HS2 will provide far faster journeys than now via a major new interchange at Old Oak Common, linking to the Great Western main line, Crossrail and the Heathrow express.
	The third point I want to make today is about design and help for those most affected. Many hon. Members want the Government to take that extremely seriously, and we do. Although the line will benefit the country as a whole, it will also create great anxiety among those close to the proposed route. We will therefore consult properly, design carefully and compensate fairly. Let me stress that today I am announcing an initial preferred route: this is the start of the process, not the end. We are ready to listen, and ready to improve. I want this line to create jobs and prosperity, not harm them. Where businesses may be affected, we will work with them to find a solution. We will now begin a period of informal consultation on phase 2 that will inform the official public consultation, which was originally planned for 2014 but which, I can announce, will be brought forward to this year. The aim is to reach a firm decision on the route of phase 2 in 2014.
	I understand how such proposals can affect property markets. Compensation will therefore be as generous as on the first phase, and more generous than when we built the motorways. Today I am launching a public consultation on the exceptional hardship scheme for
	those who must sell but cannot do so because of HS2. Under this scheme we will pay the full price, valued as if there were no HS2. That will be followed by the next stage of our property compensation scheme once the final route is confirmed.
	There are not many issues on which political parties in the House agree, but this is one of them. Regardless of the nature of the Government when the first trains run in 13 years’ time, what matters are the jobs, the rebalancing of the economy, and our country’s future prosperity. I commend this statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the Secretary of State for providing a copy of his statement in advance.
	As the Secretary of State was generous enough to say in his foreword to the Government’s Command Paper, which was published today, HS2 is a project that was started by the last Government. Having successfully built HS1, Britain’s first new railway line for more than 100 years, we were determined that the rest of the country, not just the south-east, should benefit from vital investment to increase capacity and reduce journey times on our railway.
	I assure the Secretary of State and the House that we are 100% behind this project. We want to see the line built, and we will continue to offer cross-party support, which will include helping to ensure that the necessary legislation reaches the statute book. I know that the Secretary of State faces considerable challenges in securing the support of colleagues on his side of the House. I have spent much of today defending the project in interviews opposite Conservative Members. I hope and assume that the right hon. Gentleman’s lengthy experience as Chief Whip will come in handy when it comes to quelling the rebellions.
	The reason why we need to build this new high-speed railway line is clear: capacity. Our existing three main routes between north and south are congested, and in the case of the west coast line, nearly full. If we do not act now, we will face even worse overcrowding. Doing nothing is not an option. Continuing to patch and mend our existing lines is no longer good enough, and will not bring us the major reductions in journey times that HS2 will deliver.
	Given the importance of the scheme, I wonder whether the Secretary of State appreciates the level of frustration at the slow progress made so far in the current Parliament. The consultation on the first phase has been botched, not by him, but in his Department. Submissions have been lost, and the Government now face defeat in the courts, which has the potential to take us back to square one on the consultation. The draft route for the second phase was finally set out only today, two and a half years after the election. No legislation has been published. Today’s Command Paper suggests that Royal Assent to the Secretary of State’s first hybrid Bill will not be achieved until some point in 2015, not by the time of the next election as was previously intended. This scheme is too important to be subject either to further delays or to incompetence in the Department for Transport. I hope that the Secretary of State will now do all that he can both to speed up progress and to avoid any further errors.
	On the judicial review, will the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects to receive a judgment, and on the impact that a ruling against his Department would have on the plans that he has set out today?
	Let me now turn to the specific details of the route announced by the Secretary of State. First, will the right hon. Gentleman think again about his decision to commit himself only to introducing legislation covering the first phase of the line from London to Birmingham in the current Parliament? Of course it is true that a single Bill would need to await completion of the consultation on the second phase of the route, but by introducing the Bill later in this Parliament and carrying it over to the next—as we did with the legislation for the building of Crossrail—we would secure Parliament’s approval for the whole route earlier than we would under the Government’s plans. That would open up the possibility of beginning construction in the north as well as the south, which is something that the Transport Committee has urged the Government to consider.
	Secondly, will the Secretary of State look again at the issue of connectivity between HS1 and HS2, which many, including his own party’s Mayor of London and also Transport for London, believe to be totally inadequate? The proposal to make use of an existing part of the North London line looks like a back-of-an-envelope fix that is not focused on the long-term potential for international rail travel. Surely we need to build a dedicated, purpose-built link between HS1 and HS2. I urge him to look at this again.
	Thirdly, will the Secretary of State listen carefully to the concerns that he will have heard today about the decision not to connect HS2 with our major city centres in some instances? I appreciate the difficulty, not least in terms of engineering and cost, of taking a new rail line into an existing major rail station and enabling through services, yet the consequences of not doing so are potentially economically to disadvantage city centres and encourage out-of-town development; and passengers losing much of the journey time savings achieved by using the new line as they transfer to get to their city centre destination. I know that there are differing views on this from city to city, and there is no single right answer, but the Secretary of State’s proposals today make it clear that the recommendations are just “initial” recommendations and I hope that that indicates a willingness to continue a dialogue on these issues, not least with the cities themselves.
	Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that today’s decision to kick into the long grass how HS2 will connect to Heathrow is a major error? As he knows, our preference, as a result of our policy review, is to take the line direct via Heathrow. That was the Conservative party’s position before the last election and I am sorry that it no longer supports it. However, the Government’s compromise of a spur was at least a recognition of the need to provide a direct link to Heathrow from HS2. Abandoning that today sets back the potential for HS2 to deliver transfer traffic to our hub airport via high-speed rail rather than short-haul flights, an approach that has the potential to free up valuable slots that could be used for new long-haul flights to serve emerging markets.
	The Secretary of State says that that decision has been taken because the Davies commission on aviation will not report back before 2015. Surely the answer is not to delay decisions on HS2 but to speed them up on
	aviation. Will the Government finally accept that 2015 is far too late to have an answer to our longer-term aviation capacity needs? Will he agree to our call for the commission to produce its final report way in advance of 2015, enabling cross-party talks on a way forward that can be put to people at the next election? That would deliver the certainty needed not just for aviation, but on the route for HS2.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will consider those four issues in the spirit in which they are raised. We seek to improve the Government’s proposals, because it is vital that we get this right if all the benefits we all seek are to be realised.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I start by thanking the hon. Lady for the support that she gives, in principle, to the project? I fully accept that HS1 was finished by the previous Government, but if we needed to get into a debating argument, I could say that it was started by the previous Conservative Government, who had the foresight to say how important it would be. Anyone who uses St Pancras station will have seen what a vast difference has been made to that station since HS1. It used to be a station that nobody wanted to go to, but now it is a destination in itself. I wanted to make that particular point first.
	The hon. Lady raised a number of points. She said that I will have certain strong voices against me on this side of the House, but I dare say—I know this from some of the letters I have received from Labour Members—there will be some vocal opponents on her side of the House too. We will see how the debate goes, but that is the case. She also asked me to speculate on what might happen in the judicial review. I may have been in the Whips Office for 17 years, but I am not prepared to start speculating from the Dispatch Box on what the courts may or may not say. We will wait to hear what is said, because a judicial review has taken place. I believe that the Government have acted properly in the way this has gone forward, but we will wait to see what happens on that.
	The hon. Lady talked about how some cities are disappointed not to have stations directly in the city centre. As I said in my statement, this is the start of the process and not the end of it, but I say to her that HS2 is not just about serving cities; it is about serving the regions, and so this goes a lot wider than just the cities. Some cities will have a station in them, because of the way in which things have been constructed and the way in which we can engineer into them. In certain other areas the engineering is much more difficult and a lot more expensive, but as I have said, we will of course listen. I have engaged with the city leaders—I know that some of them will be disappointed that I have not been able to say to those cities exactly where the route has gone until today—and so that process is there.
	The hon. Lady talks about having a greater link between HS1 and HS2, and I am certainly prepared—I have received representations from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is sitting directly behind her—to look at how that can be done. However, it is true to say that, even as presently announced, HS2 will be able to serve areas of the continent direct if there is a demand and need for that.
	The hon. Lady made the point about Heathrow. The Government have set up a commission to try to get a consensus. We have a welcome consensus on HS2—cross-party consensus on big infrastructure projects is a tremendous advantage because of the time that such projects naturally take. However, it is right to see what the Davies commission says.
	The hon. Lady’s final point was to ask whether we could hold the project off and bring the measures together in one Bill. That would lead to a tremendous delay. There would not just be a delay while we consulted, but a delay while the environmental assessment was conducted and consulted on. Far from making the process quicker, it would be delayed; I estimate that it would mean we probably could not have a Bill ready until 2018. I want a Bill to begin its progress in this Parliament. Of course, how the Bill progresses is up to Parliament.

Cheryl Gillan: Today, Mr Speaker, thousands of people will be faced with the blight and uncertainty that you and I are familiar with, because our constituents across Buckinghamshire have suffered it for nearly four years. If the Government are determined to have HS2 and to force it through, and as the Secretary of State has stressed that the economic need is greater in the north, why not really reconsider and start HS2 in the north so that the benefits are more immediate and the connectivity to the south-east and on to global markets through the as yet undecided hub airport can be better guaranteed and integrated? Would not that make more common sense?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know how my right hon. Friend feels on this subject, and I appreciate how Members whose constituencies have the line going through them have strong representations to make in the House. However, starting the route in the north, on which, up until today, work had not been done, would not be a better way of getting greater connectivity and connections. We should bear in mind that the routes I have said are overcrowded are even more overcrowded when they come into London, which is where we need the extra capacity in the first instance.

Frank Dobson: The Secretary of State has said that he will ensure that people are compensated fairly. In December 2010, his predecessor said exactly the same thing about the people in my constituency who are affected by the first phase. However, at a meeting on Thursday in my constituency, officials from HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport made it crystal clear to many people living near Euston station, including some of those who had exercised their right to buy their council flats, that they would not be fully compensated, and that others, including people whose businesses will be totally destroyed, will not be compensated at all. Can we rely on the Secretary of State to ensure that, when he says one thing in the House of Commons, his officials do not set it aside in the country?

Patrick McLoughlin: I believe the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), gave the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on that point last Friday. I am certainly
	prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss these matters and to try and clear up what confusion there seems to be.

Alan Haselhurst: In view of the continued drift from north to south, which has been a characteristic of this country for many decades, and which places enormous pressure on services and facilities in constituencies such as mine, should not HS2 be hailed as the most dramatic attempt yet to correct that national imbalance to the advantage of the country as a whole?

Patrick McLoughlin: When HS2 is fully up and built, it will have a major impact on the north and will help dramatically to rebalance the economy, which is so desperately needed. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support.

Helen Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great concern in Warrington because it will not get an HS2 station? Warrington has developed its economy based on its good transport links, but we are unsure whether trains running on the existing line from Crewe will be sufficient. There is also concern that the line that will join the west coast main line at Wigan goes through parts of my constituency along a linear park, so we get the disruption without the benefits. Will he undertake to work with Warrington borough council and other interested parties to consider alternatives so that Warrington can benefit from HS2?

Patrick McLoughlin: Of course, I am prepared to do that and I am sure that Warrington council will want to take part in the consultation I announced today. Warrington will be served in the same way as Liverpool and other areas, such as Wigan, but of course I will consider the hon. Lady’s representations. I want to make it clear that today is the start of the process, not the end. It is, however, the start of a very important and beneficial process for the United Kingdom.

Alan Reid: Liberal Democrats very much welcome the announcement today that journey times to Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh will be reduced by almost an hour. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s aspiration to reduce the journey time to Scotland to three hours. How are his discussions with the Scottish Government about that aspiration going?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I announced my proposals for Scotland last October, but I have been concentrating on the proposals I have set out today for the moment. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke to members of the Scottish Government about the scheme and they are keen to be involved.

Louise Ellman: I welcome today’s statement, which represents important investment for the future, but will the Secretary of State confirm that that will be part of investment in an integrated national rail system so that areas that are not on the high-speed line will benefit, too?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed I can. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, who I know will probably want to carry out a detailed inquiry into this matter. Although it is true that some areas are not covered by high-speed rail at the moment, it will go up to Birmingham in the first instance and then to Manchester, and journeys will be able to carry on from there, as they do in Kent on the line that goes down to Ashford.

Roger Gale: Thank you, Mr Speaker; your calling me was timely. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on having the courage and conviction to seek to drive through investment in this country’s infrastructure future. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) sought to take the credit for High Speed 1, but the problem with that is that it is not finished at all. Will my right hon. Friend, while he is doing all this, ensure that HS1 runs through from Ashford to Thanet?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend sees the advantage of high-speed rail down to certain parts of Kent and wants to extend it. I am sure that he will carry on making that case, but at the moment I hope he will forgive me for saying that I want to try to concentrate on the plans I have announced today, although we are always looking to improve services across the country.

Paul Blomfield: The Secretary of State is right: what matters are the jobs. An independent study conducted for South Yorkshire passenger transport executive and Sheffield city council shows that a station in the city centre would bring up to £5 billion more into the local economy than a station at Meadowhall and would create 6,500 more jobs. Will the Secretary of State commit to keeping an open mind on that option?

Patrick McLoughlin: I said at the beginning of my statement that I would keep an open mind. I accept the points about Sheffield and I know that there will be disappointment that HS2 is not going directly into the city centre. We have tried to ensure that we serve the whole of the region through the Meadowhall station, but as I have said, today is the start of the process and we will enter into discussions, as I have told the leader of Sheffield city council, with all the prominent leaders in the area.

Graham Brady: I warmly endorse the proposed station at Manchester airport, but may I also stress the importance of the point that compensation for those living close to the route should be not only generous but creative in ensuring that we can move as quickly as possible towards realising the new high-speed rail route?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We are consulting on compensation, and at the moment we are part of the way through that consultation. He makes an extremely important point, and I am glad that he welcomes the fact that we will serve Manchester airport as well as Manchester.

Dennis Skinner: Would it not make a lot more sense for the Secretary of State to tell the Chancellor that he ought to be spending £33 billion straight away on capital projects—housing and all the
	rest? As for Derbyshire, why is it that the preferred route seems to travel to the heavily populated eastern side of Derbyshire? I do not think it touches Derbyshire Dales at all. How many homes will be blighted as a result?

Patrick McLoughlin: Many things can change—people in the Whips Office can become Ministers—but one thing is certain: the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) will come out with the same arguments against any proposals. [Interruption.] He wants us to spend money now. We are spending money now. We have had massive investment in the railways and we have announced massive investment in the railways. He points out that the route does not go through my constituency. I am well aware of that, but I can assure him that I took very careful advice and followed the recommendations. The sustainability summary goes into great detail about why that particular part of the route was chosen. There are many people who would have liked it to go to Derby.

Andrew Bridgen: I declare an interest. Plans unveiled this morning suggest that the preferred route of HS2 will pass within 100 feet of my family’s home in North West Leicestershire. Can my right hon. Friend confirm the level of consultation already undertaken by those planning the HS2 route? East Midlands airport in my constituency was unaware until this morning’s announcement that a tunnel was planned under its site, and a developer of an area north of the airport looking to produce a rail freight interface was equally not consulted. The route puts in jeopardy a potential £450 million private sector investment now in my constituency, and the creation of up to 7,000 new jobs.

Patrick McLoughlin: There is always a dilemma for us as to who we talk to and consult. It would have been wrong of me to start telling people where the route was going before I had laid the documents before Parliament this morning. We will start that consultation. If my hon. Friend has had a chance to look at the sustainability summary that goes with the document I published today, he will have seen on page 70 that the area he is talking about is marked for tunnelling under East Midlands airport, and the east midlands gateway rail freight interchange development site is clearly marked. We will obviously work with developers to minimise the impact wherever we can.

John McDonnell: The decision to delay the recommendations on the Heathrow spur until the Howard Davies commission has reported means that my constituents face at least another two years of uncertainty. Is not one solution to bring forward the Davies report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) suggested? Even if the Davies commission’s interim report this year dealt with the matter, we would have more certainty about the connection with Heathrow.

Patrick McLoughlin: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have made clear the Government’s position as to why we have done what we have done. We think it is a sensible way to go but I am sure he will make those representations in the consultation process.

Michael Fabricant: Although I accept the need for an additional line to relieve capacity on the rail network, this route plunges through rural Britain, and rural Staffordshire, and should use existing transport corridors. It blights the environment, homes and lives. Does my right hon. Friend understand that what my constituents and all our constituents need is certainty, so that they understand the impact the line will have, what vibrations it will produce and what the visual impact will be? Most important of all, they need certainty about what compensation they will receive.

Patrick McLoughlin: Part of the reason for bringing forward the consultation period from next year to this year is to help my hon. Friend’s constituents, but I fully accept that where the line is going is inconvenient to some people. We cannot build a brand-new railway line and not upset anybody. We believe that it is very much in the national interest and in the interests of the United Kingdom.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It was a great pleasure to see the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on platform 6 at Leeds station this morning. He knows the benefits of HS2 to areas such as Leeds and Bradford. This is a long-term project and there are two projects in the short term that will help both Leeds and Bradford—the links to the airport so that it can expand and the Wortley curve between Leeds and Bradford. Will he look at those projects as well?

Patrick McLoughlin: It was a pleasure also to see the hon. Gentleman this morning. I hope that as a result of having announced in this way where the route will go, improvements can be achieved in the interim period in some of these areas. I have talked to Leeds city council about the site that we have earmarked, and it is, as I understand it, content with it.

Andrea Leadsom: The consultation on compensation for phase 1 ends this week. First, I urge my right hon. Friend not to take the word of his departmental officials but to look himself at the impact of the exceptional hardship scheme on many constituents whose lives have been utterly destroyed by incompetent and completely inconsistent panels. Secondly, I urge him to reconsider a property bond. Although officials have said there is no evidence that that works, it would be the one way to ensure that the blight that extends for miles in my constituency is removed. Finally, I urge him to look at the fairness of compensation between phase 1 and phase 2.

Patrick McLoughlin: As my hon. Friend correctly said, the consultation period on the compensation scheme ends at the end of this week. I know that she has put her own representations into that consultation, and of course I will consider them among many of the other representations we have received.

Clive Betts: I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an HS2 station in Sheffield. There is an argument for having it in the city centre, but I understand why he has chosen Meadowhall on grounds of cost and time. In particular, it should be a station for the whole city region. Will he therefore give an assurance that his Department will work closely with
	local councils and South Yorkshire passenger transport executive to make sure that there is real connectivity in the whole Sheffield city region so that everyone can get to the station at Meadowhall easily?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is a former leader of Sheffield city council and therefore speaks with authority on this matter, as he does in his role as Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, so I will obviously look at those matters. He is right that there is a balance to be struck. He will see that in the document we address why have arrived at the conclusions and recommendations that we have, but I am of course prepared to listen to any further representations.

John Leech: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, particularly the decision to have an additional station at Manchester airport. However, there will be some anxiety among people in south Manchester about the proposal to have a deep tunnel under homes there. What assurances can he give that they will not face years of disruption?

Patrick McLoughlin: When carrying out these big projects, there will always be the problem of inconvenience caused during the period of construction, and I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We will work with local communities to try to ensure that we minimise the impact. I am glad that the area he mentions is to be tunnelled; a lot of colleagues would wish that more of the route was tunnelled.

Ann Coffey: I support this announcement, but it is estimated that it could take up to 20 years to build the line to Manchester. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in the meantime priority is given to making sure that the west coast main line gets the investment needed to improve the current line from London to Manchester, including upgrading Stockport station?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady is consistent, if nothing else can be said about the points that she makes; I had already anticipated the question before she had finished asking it. Yes, money is continuing to be spent on the west coast main line. I will look into the position with her local station, as I promised to last time she asked me a question. I failed to write to her then, and I will certainly do so this time.

Richard Harrington: I commend the Secretary of State and the Government on this courageous and very significant announcement on HS2. It is particularly of interest to the cities with new stations, but what does he think the effect will be on my constituents in a place that will not be directly affected but is suffering from very poor capacity and a very poor service from London Midland?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend hits on one of the fundamental reasons why we need to build HS2. It is not just a matter of journey times but capacity. Freeing up capacity will allow us to have more services from areas such as my hon. Friend’s, as is so desperately needed.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the statement, thank the Secretary of State for advanced notice of it and recognise the Government’s ambitions for reduced journey times to Scotland. However, reducing journey times to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and further along the east coast to Dundee and Aberdeen, would require HS2 to go beyond Manchester and Leeds. I know that the Secretary of State is doing this in a phased way, but when will he be in a position to tell the House the time scale for the completion of HS2, so that every major city on the island will be able to benefit from it?

Patrick McLoughlin: I face a dilemma because some people want us to go a lot faster while others among my colleagues do not want us to go at all. We will have to bear that in mind, but I hope that we will have fuller plans before any decision is made about independence. That depends, however, on whether the hon. Gentleman can let me know the date of the referendum.

Iain Stewart: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly how it has highlighted the benefits of the network to my constituents in Milton Keynes. On the issue of city centre against parkway stations, may I draw his attention to the evidence from the continent that both can work and that the critical point is having good connectivity across the region? May I also urge him to continue to work with local authorities and local businesses to make sure that this delivers?

Patrick McLoughlin: I thank my hon. Friend for his support and, indeed, for his work on the Transport Committee. I agree entirely with his point. Setting out our plans now and confirming them, I hope, by early next year will enable us to look at connectivity between stations in the period between our plans being outlined and the actual development.

Graham Stringer: There is tremendous support for this project in Manchester and the north of England, but, having heard from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that, surprisingly, she supports building HS2 from the north of England, will the Secretary of State reconsider what he said earlier and put both phases of HS2 into one hybrid Bill and consider building them from the north of England? In doing so, he would unite the House in an even bigger way than it is united at present.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that that would unite the House in a more cohesive way, but it is fairly united for such a controversial subject, as has been clear from the exchanges so far. As I have said, the proposals to go from north to south would mean further delay, and I point out that the first part of the route was actually published by the previous Government, who also thought that the right way to go was from London to Birmingham in the first instance.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement. It is vital that the best possible mitigation, including some realignment, is offered to those of my constituents who will be affected by the route. If HS2 is to bring jobs and prosperity, as he
	desires, to the wider west midlands region, a stop on the route is required in Staffordshire. May I ask him to take that fully into account?

Patrick McLoughlin: I certainly will. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The route goes substantially through his constituency and areas that are not near motorway corridors or the like, and I will certainly look at his representations.

Lucy Powell: On behalf of Manchester, I strongly welcome the proposals that the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament today, not, as others have said, as a panacea to stop the north-south divide, but to build on 15 years of urban renaissance started by the Labour council and Labour Government. The redevelopment opportunities presented in my constituency in and around Manchester Piccadilly station are also exciting. May I echo the comments of other colleagues and ask the Secretary of State to consider introducing a hybrid Bill, so that we can maximise those opportunities here and now, not several years in the future?

Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the hon. Lady to the House and to the Transport Committee, where she will no doubt want to return to this topic on many occasions. I was slightly chastised earlier by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on what the courts may or may not say about HS2. If I followed the route suggested by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), I know that I would find myself on the wrong side of judicial reviews.

John Stevenson: I welcome the announcement on the developments on HS2 and the substantial investment in our rail network. However, will the Secretary of State confirm that the existing west coast line will continue to receive the investment that it requires? In particular, will signalling upgrades be more than just like-for-like and bring capacity improvements?

Patrick McLoughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend of that. Over the new year, I saw the upgrading work at Shugborough tunnel. That is the sort of investment that no one normally sees. Until that work was done, trains could go through the tunnel at only 50 mph. They can now go through it at 125 mph. I fully accept the need for continued investment. My hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from High Speed 2 up to Manchester and will be able to pick up the normal lines beyond that.

Stephen Pound: May I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for South Northampton- shire (Andrea Leadsom) said about property bonds? The Secretary of State is speaking about phase 2, but he has mentioned Old Oak Common. Although I am extremely grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) for his engagement with the local community, fear still stalks the streets of Greenford, Northolt and Perivale. Will the Secretary of State say whether it is his preference for that section of the line to be tunnelled? If so, it will be a great relief to many long-suffering constituents of mine.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is making a representation to me that he has made before to the Minister of State. We will consider that representation and when we are in a position to make an announcement, we will do so.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Does he agree that this investment should be seen alongside the other major rail announcements for the north that have been made recently, such as those on the northern hub and the TransPennine Express electrification project? Together, those projects will transform the experience of rail in the north.

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. Those announcements show the Government’s commitment to the rail industry and to the railway services that we all want in our constituencies.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State say how major cities such as Coventry will benefit from this project, bearing in mind the representations that I made to him some weeks ago on that matter? Secondly, and more importantly, there will inevitably be people who fall outside the compensation formula. What does he intend to do about that, because I know of cases in Coventry and Warwickshire?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am willing to listen to any representations, but a line has to be drawn somewhere on such developments. I think that Coventry will be served by the large station at the Birmingham International exchange before the line goes into Birmingham Curzon Street. It is up to Coventry to work with the Department to work out the best possible routes to link in with the line so that people in Coventry have the advantage of HS2.

Nigel Mills: I warmly welcome the announcement and especially the fact that the route will miss my constituency off to the east. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be good links not only to Nottingham and Derby, but to smaller local stations, such as the three in my constituency?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. As I have said, capacity is one of the key reasons for building the new route. It will be the first railway line to be built north of London in 120 years. We need extra capacity. By freeing up capacity, the line will enable there to be better services elsewhere.

Paul Goggins: I, too, welcome the proposed station at Manchester airport, which will help to sustain many new jobs across the city region and particularly within airport city and other parts of the Manchester enterprise zone in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those who are responsible for HS2 continue to work closely with the local authorities and the airport so that these different initiatives are properly linked together and bring the maximum possible benefit to local communities?

Patrick McLoughlin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and for his attendance at last week’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on high
	speed rail. I can give him that assurance. As I said earlier, this is the start of the process, not the end. We want to get the maximum possible value out of the investment.

Andrew Selous: On a number of recent occasions, trains pulling into Leighton Buzzard station have been so full that no passenger has been able to get from the platform on to the train. Will HS2 help them?

Patrick McLoughlin: I very much hope so. My hon. Friend makes a point about the important need for greater capacity, and I will look in great detail at how the issue may affect his constituents.

David Anderson: Without any three-lane motorway north of north Yorkshire, and with a dual carriageway that ends just north of Newcastle, the north-east has the worst road system in the country. We are now being told that we will also have a second-rate railway system. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best we are going to get in the north-east is HS1.5?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that way. We have just announced a major investment in dualling the A1 up to Newcastle, and I will look at other schemes in due course.

Adrian Sanders: May I lodge with the Secretary of State some very real concerns from the far south-west in Devon and Cornwall? The area already suffers from the slowest rail speeds and most expensive fares, yet billions of pounds are being invested elsewhere. What message can he give the people of Devon and Cornwall that they will benefit directly from that investment?

Patrick McLoughlin: I very much recognise the position faced by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as far as the great western line is concerned, and I have organised a special briefing for Members of Parliament from Network Rail about that section of the rail network. As a new member of the Transport Committee, the hon. Gentleman will want to keep that under guard.

Stephen Timms: May I press the Secretary of State on the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) about the HS2-HS1 interconnection? As I understand, under current proposals it will be limited to, at most, three trains per hour. As I am sure the Secretary of State will want trains from new HS2 destinations to run beyond London and across the channel, will we not have to do better than that with the interconnection?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I tried to address that in an earlier answer. Of course I want to look at how the connection works, and it will be possible to run some services from Old Oak Common direct to the continent if there is demand for that. We will certainly look at the issue, and at how the whole London interconnection works.

David Mowat: This project is very important to the wider economy in the north and north-west. Given that the revised business case remains
	considerably better than, for example, the Crossrail business case, will the Secretary of State do what he can to deliver this project before 2033?

Patrick McLoughlin: I take that as a request to get a move on and get building a lot quicker. We will see what progress we can make.

Robert Flello: Although the Secretary of State’s comments about Staffordshire provide some crumbs of comfort, may I impress on him that unless we have a station in the north Staffordshire area the damage that will be done to our economy will be huge? Conversely, if we get one, the benefits will be equally massive.

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said at the beginning of my statement, and as I shall now reiterate, these are our initial proposals. We have considered the issue, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at the early part of the sustainability study, particularly page 10, which shows the work that went in to try and model this. However, I hear what he says, and what my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) are calling for.

David Rutley: This is positive news for the north-west. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact that HS2 will have on existing west coast main line services and, not to put too fine a point on it, services to and from Macclesfield station?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I have said—I hope I am not becoming boring by being repetitious—we are hoping for greater capacity not only so that my hon. Friend’s constituents are served, but so that we see some movement of freight from road to rail.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the statement and especially the wise and logical decision to connect the High Speed 2 line with the east coast main line at York. Does the Secretary of State realise that next to York station is the biggest city centre development site anywhere in western Europe—the York Central site? It is important for his officials to safeguard land on that site for additional platforms to get maximum connectivity with conventional rail services, and for local government Ministers to work with York city council to ensure that the area is developed as a business site to benefit from the new railway.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so welcoming of the development. High Speed 2 will stop just short of York, but it will obviously be served by it. One of the things that we want to look at with this project is how we get regeneration in areas. This should open up huge potential, especially around station sites, for the north to benefit from connections with the rest of the country.

Christopher Pincher: I became aware that the proposed Leeds alignment will run just a few hundred yards from Wilnecote and Stoneydelph in my constituency when I looked at the HS2 website this morning. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss mitigations in the Tamworth area if his
	initial preferred alignment becomes his final preferred alignment? More particularly, can we discuss other, better alternatives?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am certainly prepared to meet my hon. Friend and discuss alternatives that he may wish to put forward. I hope that he will realise that in deciding on the route through his constituency we have tried to follow an existing major road network. Of course, I will meet him and listen carefully to any representations he has to make.

Ian Austin: I strongly support High Speed 2 and very much welcome today’s announcement. The Secretary of State will no doubt have followed the debate about the arrangements between Birmingham International and the city centre. May I suggest that a way of dealing with that controversy and its unpopularity in certain areas would be to take the route along the existing line north of the city and, instead of having the link in the city centre, have it close to the M5/M6 junction in the black country, alongside the M6 at Walsall? There is a huge railway yard there already, and it would have much better links across the black country and Birmingham. It would support exactly what the Secretary of State has said about rebalancing the economy, because it has the largest concentration of manufacturers anywhere in western Europe. It would greatly help with the regeneration of the black country, and it would be easier, cheaper and quicker to build.

Mr Speaker: It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman wants an Adjournment debate on the subject.

Patrick McLoughlin: If the hon. Gentleman has one, I will make sure that a Minister answers it properly. I would need to look a bit more closely at the maps, but I think that he is doing the opposite to what most other colleagues with city centre sites are doing. He is asking me to take it from a city centre, and he is thus demonstrating the problems that we have in trying to get a route established and accepted by everyone and that serves the best areas of the country.

Andrew Percy: The Secretary of State said that this proposal must benefit all our regions, and he will know that the best part of our region lies to the east, in the Humber. Can he confirm whether work will begin now on how we can improve our connectivity into Sheffield Meadowhall or say how we can benefit from the increased capacity on the east coast line?

Patrick McLoughlin: The truth is that my hon. Friend is looking forward to the benefits that will come from this. Part of the reason for making the announcements now is that once we have the route signed off—it is out for consultation—we can look at getting the right connections into these stations in the longer term, for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom.

Alison McGovern: High Speed 2 is incredibly important for all of Merseyside and our city region’s development. Further to the answers that the Secretary of State has given already on connectivity,
	will he confirm that the northern hub should not be the end of better inter-city rail services in the north of England, but the start and that we need to start planning for better now?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes. I was in Liverpool and met the mayor a few weeks ago. It was substantially easier to get from London to Liverpool than it was to get from Liverpool back to Derby.

Bob Russell: Taxpayers of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk and users of the Greater Anglia line will contribute to the cost of HS2. We have had years of neglect by successive Governments of rail investment in East Anglia. The Secretary of State has said that he is determined to make sure that the benefits of HS2 run much wider than the places directly served by the new line. How will it benefit Colchester?

Patrick McLoughlin: Huge investment—£2.2 billion, I think —is already going into the area that serves the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I appreciate that he might like us to have a high-speed link to his area. We are being ambitious, but I am afraid that that ambition can only go so far.

Tristram Hunt: This morning I received an e-mail from a constituent who said he found it utterly incredible that the line should go from Birmingham to Manchester without stopping at the north Staffordshire conurbation. There is anger in Stoke-on-Trent that HS2 will just skim the west of the potteries and not stop there. What benefits can HS2 bring to my constituents? Will the Secretary of State explain the current thinking for a stop at Crewe, rather than one along the M6? What assurances can he give that the existing west coast main line will not be affected?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the two documents we have published, but I have made it very clear that today is the start of the process and I expect him to make representations, as he has just done. I know Stoke-on-Trent and the surrounding area incredibly well. We have made improvements to its road infrastructure, but they have been very controversial over many years.

Paul Maynard: I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, not least as a demonstration of our party’s commitment to the north of England. Although Blackpool will not be getting a high-speed station—I will not stand here today and demand one—will he none the less explain when Network Rail will be able to make an assessment of how much capacity the HS2 project will free up on the west coast main line?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question. I think I can best answer it by saying that we will have a better indication of exactly what capacity will be freed up once the line is confirmed and Network Rail is asked to start the work on the consequences of building the line.

Cathy Jamieson: The Secretary of State made reference not only to passenger capacity on the west coast main line but
	freight. Given the importance to the Scottish economy of connectivity between Scotland and the rest of the UK, will he discuss with the Scottish Government how freeing up capacity will benefit freight services to and from Scotland?

Patrick McLoughlin: Now that the hon. Lady has asked me to do so, I will.

Philip Hollobone: Whenever and from wherever construction starts, and whatever configuration High Speed 2 takes, will the Secretary of State ensure that this is a British railway, with the trains built in Britain, the tracks built in Britain, all the equipment coming from British firms, and British workers and British firms building the railway?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am determined, by the long-term nature of the notice we are giving, that British companies will be able to compete and win the business that will be available, and will go out to tender in the usual way. From what I have seen of British engineering, I believe it is well able to compete with anywhere else in the world.

Mark Lazarowicz: The publication today states that the Government have been working productively with the Scottish Government on this issue for two years, yet after two years the only firm commitment we have is for a further study into high-speed rail to Scotland, followed by identification of a remit for further work. That does not sound like very high-speed decision making to me. Why will the Government not commit themselves now to extending high-speed rail to Scotland, and start preparing the route now to make sure it actually happens?

Patrick McLoughlin: I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, because he is bringing a chord of disharmony into what so far has been a fairly harmonious occasion, that we have made more progress on high-speed rail in two years than the previous Government did in 13.

Ben Wallace: I warmly welcome the announcement today that my constituents’ journey time from London to Preston will be reduced by 30% from 2 hours 8 minutes to 1 hour 24 minutes—a great thing for Preston. However, there is still some confusion among the public, who believe that a stop is necessary to benefit from the speed of HS2. Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear to many of my constituents, who use Lancaster and Preston, that as soon as phase 1 is started they will benefit from the reduced journey times, whether or not they have a stop?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is right to say that his constituents will benefit from the opening of the first part of the line, from London to Birmingham, because the trains will be able to travel at high speed between those two cities, saving about 40 minutes on overall journey times. And that is before we have extended the line further north.

Catherine McKinnell: Improvements to rail, road and air transport infrastructure are vital if regions such as the north-east
	are to continue as leading exporters, so will the Secretary of State outline what discussions he has had with regional airports, such as Newcastle International airport, about ensuring that the HS2 plans lead to a properly integrated transport system?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said earlier, some of my discussions with various bodies have been curtailed until the route is announced, but those conversations should start in earnest as a result of today’s announcement.

Henry Smith: I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement. He is right about how important connectivity with the London hub airport will be when the issue of the hub is determined. Will cognisance also be taken, however, of the importance of linkage with major international gateways to the south of London, such as Gatwick airport and the Gatwick Express?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is right. We cannot look at these things singly, but must consider how they impact not only on Heathrow airport but on other airports and availability to constituents who wish to use those services.

Frank Field: I direct the Secretary of State back to the question about construction beginning in the north. Given that London is all-powerful and will see this project completed, if it is in London’s interest, will he take a new stance on the hybrid Bill? If the leaders in Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds could fit in with his timetable, might we have a hybrid Bill please?

Patrick McLoughlin: Of course I will consider the representations, but it is not so much a question of those leaders of cities in the north fitting in with the timetable, but of the other areas we have to address in the proposals. We are out to consultation, and the right hon. Gentleman will have heard that some people are not too happy with the route proposed and would like changes and adjustments to be made. That takes time, and once we have settled on the route—as I said, we are out to consultation, which means I have not settled on one—we will have to carry out environmental assessments and the like, which I am afraid take considerable time. I am keen to get on with this as quickly as possible, but I am constrained by what we need to do.

Michael Ellis: I commend my right hon. Friend for what was, in many respects, a courageous statement and one that has support from all corners of the House. Will he confirm, however, that rail fares, which are already high in many areas, will, in respect of HS2, not be too high and will make HS2 accessible to all?

Patrick McLoughlin: The Department is currently conducting a fares review. Like everybody else, I am keen to see passengers benefit from cheaper fares, but the truth is that those able to book trains in advance and outside rush hour can already get some very cheap fares—cheaper, in fact, than they have been for many years. However, we do not mean to build a railway only to see people unable to take advantage of it. I will want to ensure that people can take advantage of those services.

Angela Smith: I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to a south Yorkshire-based approach to the placement of the HS2 station in the Sheffield city region. Indeed, the choice of Meadowhall suggested today seems to offer a reasonable way forward. Will he consider ensuring, however, that the enabling aspects of the hybrid Bill contain at least a commitment to phase 2? Let us separate the enabling from the quasi-judicial aspects of the Bill.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that suggestion and will think on it a little more.

Eric Ollerenshaw: When it comes to the impact of High Speed 2 on Lancaster and the rest of the north-west beyond—dare I say—Manchester and Merseyside, if I understood it correctly the Secretary of State was saying that high-speed trains from London to Manchester would enter the west coast main line just above Wigan, stopping at Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and Glasgow, so that we in Lancaster will therefore also get shorter journey times.

Patrick McLoughlin: The answer—[Interruption]—I am sorry, I was trying to follow exactly what my hon. Friend was saying and checking the points he was making—is that shorter journey times to Lancaster will certainly be a result and a benefit for his constituents.

Russell Brown: On the very point that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) has just made, what will be important for those travelling beyond the Wigan area is quality connectivity, so that people can continue and eventually complete their journeys. The Secretary of State has also mentioned that the Minister of State has been in contact with the Scottish Government. Is it best that I meet his right hon. Friend to discuss how those discussions have gone?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am more than happy for the hon. Gentleman to meet the Minister of State, and I will do all I can to facilitate such a meeting.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Secretary of State will be pleased that I am not asking for a re-routing via Bridgend or Aberystwyth—yet!—but what I would ask, echoing the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is whether he will consider bringing forward the Heathrow spur, which would bring a direct, long-term economic advantage to south Wales, Bristol and Avon.

Patrick McLoughlin: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the great western spur, which is in the outline of the plans we have talked about for 2014 to 2019. As somebody who had a daughter who went to Aberystwyth university, I think that what he refers to would create some challenges for us.

Tom Blenkinsop: Given the dire economic statistics that we saw on Friday, what will the Secretary of State be doing to ensure that those in the UK steel industry are given priority in procurement contracts for long
	steel products—I am thinking of sites such as Scunthorpe and Teesside beam mill—so that regions such as the north-east can benefit from this project?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I want to see British industry able to benefit from this. There will need to be competition, but I am pretty sure that British industry will be able to compete and provide the services we want and require. We will also be looking for engineers who can work on this scheme. Indeed, the construction phase will create many thousands of jobs, with, I think, the scheme creating many thousands of jobs for the longer-term future of the country.

Jonathan Ashworth: As an east midlands MP, the Secretary of State will know that his announcement today has not been universally welcomed across Leicestershire. It is certainly true that the city of Leicester will not see the same advantages that the wider Nottingham and Derby conurbations will see, with the proposal to put the station at Toton. One way he could win over his Leicestershire critics would be to bring forward—and start sooner—the electrification of the midland mainline.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes a tempting offer. We are committed to the electrification of the midland mainline, which will have substantial benefits for Leicestershire. I would add that East Midlands airport was built by the three counties—Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire—and is situated at the north of Leicestershire, which the county at that time felt was beneficial to it. The Toton sidings are basically not far from the north end of the county, so I think they will have benefits for Leicestershire as well.

Ian Mearns: Twenty years ago, I could travel from Newcastle to London in 2 hours and 38 minutes. In his announcement today, the Secretary of State said that in 20 years’ time we will be able to do it in 2 hours and 18 minutes. Does he think that 40 years is enough for 20 minutes, given the importance of connectivity for the economic regeneration of a place such as the north-east of England?

Patrick McLoughlin: I imagine that I would need to check out the timetable that the hon. Gentleman has just alluded to, because it is not unknown for Opposition Members to look on the past through rose-tinted glasses. Part of the problem might be that more people are now using the railways so there are more stops, which means that his journey is perhaps taking a little longer than it used to. However, I am very much minded to ensure that his region, like every other region in the north of the country, can benefit from the proposals I have brought forward today.

William Bain: The Secretary of State will be aware of the strength of support in the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and in Glasgow and Edinburgh city councils for the extension of high-speed track right up into Scotland’s two major cities. Would it hasten the evaluation of the economic case for that if the Minister were to commit to legislating, in this Parliament, in a single Bill covering the entirety of the route between London, Manchester and Leeds?

Patrick McLoughlin: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some time ago.

Jonathan Reynolds: I, too, welcome today’s announcement, and I particularly welcome the news that there will be two stations in Manchester. That makes a great deal of sense in relation to the connectivity that will already exist through the northern hub investment. May I reiterate to the few critics of high-speed rail that the case for this project is based on capacity, not on journey times? If we were to spend the same amount of money on the west coast main line, we would get nothing like the amount of capacity that will be freed up by High Speed 2. That is why this is the right choice for the northern economy.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This will give faster journey times, and I think that people will welcome that, but one of the overwhelming reasons for High Speed 2 is capacity. It is a fact that no new railway line has been built north of London for 120 years, and it is high time that that was put right. If we are to add to the capacity, it is right that we should take advantage of high-speed trains, which every other country in Europe and all our major competitors have already adopted.

Andrew Gwynne: This will be good news for the Greater Manchester economy, albeit some time in the future. May I press the Secretary of State on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) about connectivity? If the Greater Manchester economy is to get maximum benefit from High Speed 2, we will need proper connectivity with the continent, with London and with Heathrow airport. We can do better than the plans set out in these proposals. Will the Secretary of State commit to providing proper connectivity with Europe and with Heathrow airport?

Patrick McLoughlin: What we have announced today is exciting for the north and for the future of the rail industry in this country. The hon. Gentleman talks about connectivity, but this is a matter of connectivity not only with the south but with the major cities of the north. As I said earlier, it can take longer to get from Manchester to Derby than from Manchester to London. This is about connectivity between the major city regions in our country, and we are determined to work towards that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I hope that we can satisfy his requests at least in part.

Points of Order

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that the Second Reading debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will take place next Tuesday. It obviously raises profound moral, emotional and legal issues, but I would argue that it also raises important constitutional issues affecting the Church of England and the status of marriage itself. Have you had any intimation from the Government that, in order to ensure proper scrutiny of the Bill, its Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer to his inquiry is no, I have received no such intimation. Of course, the Chair is always in favour of more debate rather than less, and of debate that is as accessible as possible, but it is only right to say to him and to the House that the decision on the type of Committee to which a Bill is committed is a matter for the House; it is not a matter of order for the Chair. Needless to say, the Chair will always do as the House instructs. I hope that that is clear, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Jim McGovern: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 4 December, I participated in a Westminster Hall debate on Remploy, in which I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)whether she would visit the Remploy factory in Dundee. She very generously said that she would, and I expect to see her there next Monday, 4 February. In the debate, I also asked her whether she would speak to the Minister for Defence Procurement, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), about awarding contracts to Remploy for manufacturing uniforms for the armed forces. I have yet to receive a response on that. You might be aware, Mr Speaker, that I tried to intervene in a debate on 15 December, and that I raised this matter as a point of order on 16 December. I have yet to receive a response from the Minister. Will you advise me how long I should wait for a response from a Minister?

Mr Speaker: I fear I can offer little assistance to the hon. Gentleman in this matter. There are two points to mention. First, he can pursue the route of tabling questions on the Order Paper to highlight his continuing concerns and the absence thus far of a response to them. Secondly, I note in passing that the Deputy Leader of the House is in his place, and that in my experience the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House are always attentive to parliamentary courtesies. If the hon. Gentleman has been promised a response or some other commitment has been made to him, which has not yet been honoured, I say in all seriousness to him that that will be a source of some legitimate concern to the Deputy Leader of the House. Indeed, it is conceivable that the two of them might wish to have a chat outside the Chamber. I do not know; we shall see.
	If there are no further points of order, we come on to our main business.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Removal of disqualification arising from faith

‘(1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of that person not joining in communion with the Church of England as by law established; and all provisions to the contrary in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement are accordingly superseded.
	(2) Where a person who succeeds to the Crown or possesses it declares to the Privy Council that he or she is not in communion with the Church of England as by law established, the person who is next in line of succession to the Crown and who is in communion with the Church of England shall perform the functions of Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the name of and on behalf of the Sovereign.
	(3) The provisions in subsections (3) to (5) of section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 apply to such a person who is Supreme Governor, with the substitution for references to the Regent of references to the Supreme Governor.’.—(Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 1,clause 2, page1,line10, at end insert—
	‘(2A) A child of a marriage, which at the time of the marriage disqualified one of their parents from succeeding to the Crown or possessing it, who is at the time of the coming into force of this section of the Roman Catholic faith shall not as a result be for ever incapable of succeeding to the Crown.’.
	Amendment 2, clause 2, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
	‘(2B) A child of a marriage, which takes place after the coming into force of this section between a Roman Catholic and a person in line of succession to the Crown, who is of the Roman Catholic faith shall not as a result be for ever incapable of succeeding to the Crown.’.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It occurs to me that the Leader of the House must have a sense of humour. Today, as I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, is the anniversary of the death of his late Majesty King Henry VIII, so it seems only appropriate that we should be discussing the Succession to the Crown Bill on such an anniversary. After all, King Henry introduced three succession to the Crown Bills, and some of the problems we are dealing with today originate with his reign. I have proposed two further amendments, which you have graciously said, Mr Speaker, we can deal with in the course of our debate on the new clause, and I shall come to them secondarily.
	New clause 1 is the crucial part of what I am proposing. It is a development within the context of the Bill to attend not just to one discrimination but to a second that is inherent within the current rules governing the succession. From time immemorial, the succession has gone to the eldest male heir, but since the Act of Settlement 1701 it has had to go to a Protestant. There has been a religious discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of sex. My new clause seeks to amend that to allow for anybody of any faith to succeed to the Crown while making provision for the established Church.
	Many countries in the world have a Crown that is only temporal; they do not have a Crown that is spiritual as well. The mediaevalists debated at great length where power should rest in those two spheres, and I do not wish to rehearse the schoolmen’s arguments. There are, however, two distinct and separate powers and authorities: the temporal one that deals with the laws we live by and how we should lead our lives in respect of society; and the spiritual one that looks to the higher plane and the greater authority that comes with religious belief and religious conviction.
	In our country, those two powers are merged in the Crown. The Crown is both the spiritual head of the Church and the temporal head of the nation for one part—and one part only—of the Crown. On Tuesday last week, on Second Reading and indeed in Committee, we debated whether that was right and how it applied in a more modern age. It is worth looking, as we did last week, at some of the detail. Because the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, she is or has under her an established Church in Scotland, but she is not formally head of it. She puts in a Lord High Commissioner to represent her at meetings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but she is not the Supreme Governor of the established Church in Scotland in the way she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is no established Church in Wales; there is no established Church in Northern Ireland. As far as I am aware, there is no established Church in Antigua and Barbuda, in Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher-Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon islands, Tuvalu or in Her Majesty’s other realms and territories. When we deal with one discrimination but not the other, therefore, we leave a discrimination that applies only to a very small part of the totality of the Crown.

Michael Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that a discrimination is inherent, and has been since time immemorial, in relation to the eldest? My hon. Friend refers to a discrimination in relation to the Protestant faith, but is there not also an in-built discrimination against younger male heirs?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Had my hon. Friend not been meeting His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales last Tuesday, he would have heard the debate on an amendment that I tabled to clarify this matter, because the current Bill, rather than maintaining any system of primogeniture, might simply create co-heirs. Of course, the concept of monarchy has an unfairness in it—the very word “monarchy” means that one will rule; it cannot be everybody in the country. However, the reasons for having discrimination on the grounds of faith—in 1688, formalised in the Act of Settlement in 1701—are very different from those that apply today.
	Likewise, if you think back to Richard the Lionheart, Mr Speaker, as I am sure you often do, with his fine statue outside the House of Lords, you will acknowledge that it had been necessary since time immemorial to have a king who was able to fight, lead armies in battle and show his great strength, and that was easier for a male than for a female. The last king to lead troops into battle was George II.
	Historically, therefore, there may have been reasons for having a religious discrimination, a discrimination on the grounds of sex, and the obvious discrimination within a monarchy of it being rule by one. As the discrimination on the grounds of sex is no longer necessary, or can no longer be argued for logically, nor can exclusions on the grounds of religion.
	The reason for the religious bar in the late 17th and early 18th century was the genuine threat perceived by this country from the strong Catholic nations in Europe. In the reign of Elizabeth I, of course, the Spanish had been the threat, but by the reign of Queen Anne, the French were the greater concern. Through the secret treaty of Dover, Louis XIV tried to get Charles II to take a subsidy to establish a standing army that would enforce Catholicism on the nation as part of Louis XIV’s aim to get general European rule. You might be worried, Mr Speaker, about general European rule, but it is not in support of Catholicism.

Edward Leigh: I warn my hon. Friend against accepting all the arguments of the Whig supremacy.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, although it is worth bearing in mind that the House was controlled by Tories at the point at which the Act of Settlement was passed, so I am looking to revise a Tory piece of legislation.
	The fundamental point is that the reason for the provision on religious discrimination no longer exists in the way that it did in the late 17th and early 18th century.

Michael Ellis: I am rather surprised to hear my hon. Friend’s comments, because although I had to be absent from the Chamber during the debate last week, I think I read in the parliamentary record that he had no objection to being called a Papist, despite the antiquity of that term, because he understood that it represented part of this country’s history. Does he depart from that now in saying that the historical aspect of the Protestant ascendancy in this country is not relevant today?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which made him sound even more antiquarian than I am. I do not think that I have ever heard anyone argue for the Protestant ascendancy in the House, and as far as I know it has not been argued for here since 1829, although conceivably some may have argued for it since then. It is absolutely right to say that there are historic aspects of the construction of our constitution that it would be better for us not to change.

Jim McGovern: Can the hon. Gentleman nail an argument that continues in Scotland day after day, week after week and year after year? Is the Prime Minister of this country allowed to be a Catholic?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes. The Catholic Emancipation Act 1829 makes it clear that the Prime Minister is entitled to be a Catholic. The last office to be specifically excluded was that of Lord Chancellor, but, as far as I am aware, the provision was amended in the late 1970s.
	The one thing that a Catholic Prime Minister cannot do is make or advise on appointments in the Church of England. That is specifically listed as a felony.
	The point is that times have changed, and the Bill has come forward. If there were to be no change in our plans for the succession, I would not be the one charging the barricades and saying that we ought to be changing them, but the Government have proposed this change, which they wish to limit to a very narrow sphere. They wish to limit it to making primogeniture equal among males and females, and to allowing marriage to Catholics, without considering the grating unfairness that currently exists in our laws of succession in an age of much greater toleration, and in an age in which so many of the areas in which the Queen is sovereign do not have an established Church.

Dan Byles: I always listen with great interest and enjoyment to my hon. Friend’s speeches on these matters, because he is so knowledgeable. Does he foresee a time when an heir to the throne could take his case to the European Court of Human Rights because he was not permitted to belong to the religion to which he wished to belong?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I also think that the law should represent the reality. It is inconceivable that if a sovereign of Canada—including, obviously, Quebec—decided to convert to Roman Catholicism, that sovereign would be deposed, thrown out and replaced. I think that even in this country and even with an established Church, we cannot accept the idea that a sovereign on the throne who decided to convert to Rome would be suddenly chucked out of Buckingham palace. When the law has moved away from the reality, and we are amending the law in any event, perhaps it makes sense to carry out a comprehensive reform of the law to make the two match up.

Michael Ellis: Is not my hon. Friend’s point further strengthened by the fact that those of other faiths, such as mine—the Jewish faith—are not excluded in the same way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is a part of the Act of Settlement that requires the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England, so I am not absolutely certain that my hon. Friend is correct, but my new clause would get rid of the bar for all religions. This is not simply a Catholic issue. I have concentrated more on the Catholic issue because that was the reasoning behind the Act of Settlement and the reason for its becoming part of our law, and also because clause 2 of the Bill deals with marriage to Catholics. Marriage to Catholics is a specific Catholic exclusion, but communion with the Church of England is the requirement when it comes to inheriting the throne.
	Let me explain why I support an established Church. My new clause provides for the maintaining of a Protestant head of the Church of England. That is partly to do with our history and traditions, which we see even on the Mace. It has a cross on its top as a symbol of the shared Christianity that this country has had since its very foundations as a nation, going all the way back to St Augustine coming and converting England and the ultimate joining together of the Crowns. Christianity has run through our history.

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman is going through the history, so may I point out that some of us represent parts of the country that were Christian even before St Augustine came to convert the Anglo-Saxons?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it allows me to remind the House that Joseph of Arimathea is thought to have taken our Lord to visit Somerset when he was a young men. Some people maintain that that is mere legend blurring into myth, but I am quite convinced of its veracity.
	I think that an established Church is good for the body politic—it is good for us that we can have jubilee celebrations held in St Paul’s cathedral or Westminster abbey, and that we can have that focus of national life through an established Church—but obviously an established Church cannot have as its head somebody who belongs to another Church. That would be logically inconsistent. It would be unfair on the Church of England; it would mean that bishops and archbishops appointed within the Church of England were appointed by somebody who did not share their beliefs and that could not be the right thing to do.

Bob Stewart: Could we consider having as Supreme Governor of the Church of England the Archbishop of Canterbury, thus taking this away from the sovereign?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that might have been an amendment worthy of consideration. It is not the amendment I tabled. My amendment sought to maintain the supreme governorship of the Church of England in a regency whenever the sovereign was not in communion with the Anglican Church under the Regency Act 1937, which requires the regent to be a Protestant and to meet the terms of the Act of Settlement. I would prefer to keep things that way because the Crown and the headship of the Church of England could come back together when a future sovereign was an Anglican, and my approach would not permanently separate the two. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward new thoughts on the matter; one of the reasons why it would have been better to have had a longer time for, and longer gaps in, debating this important subject is because then such ideas could have been discussed.
	My new clause is extremely simple. It is a recognition—no matter how much I am sometimes reluctant to recognise it—that the modern world is different from the early 18th century. There may have been many glories in the early 18th century, but one of the glories of this modern age is that we are tolerant—we are tolerant of different religions. We believe that people practising other faiths is something to be welcomed and encouraged, and that has made us a stronger nation rather than a weaker one. Therefore there should no longer be a bar on the grounds of faith in respect of the sovereign, as long as we can make provision for the established Church of England, which there is and which I support.
	That circle can be squared by providing for a regency. That relatively simple and straightforward proposal deals with a problem that people have recognised in this country for many decades; we have not suddenly woken
	up and realised that a non-member of the Church of England cannot become sovereign. Bills have been presented to Parliament to deal with that, and this seems the right time to be doing it, as we are legislating on the Crown succession and we are in discussion with the Commonwealth members who also have the Queen as sovereign to see whether they will agree to it.

Michael Ellis: Is it not the case that his holiness the Pope, who wears the triple crown, is also a temporal sovereign? Would it not be a requirement of that office that he be of the Catholic faith? Does that situation have any similarity with the point that my hon. Friend is making?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Much though I admire his late Holiness Pope Pius IX, he was the last Pope to exercise effective temporal power. His Prime Minister was assassinated in Rome, and from that point on, the Papacy’s temporal power in Italy has been restricted to the vicinity of the Holy See—that very small amount of land. Suggesting that we should open up the Holy See to non-Catholics when there are only about 2,000 residents, almost all of whom are in holy orders, is faintly although engagingly absurd.

Michael Ellis: It is a point of principle.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The principle is different, although it is worth noting that the only two anointed sovereigns in Christendom are the Pope and the Queen, which says something about their antiquity.

Peter Tapsell: I always listen to my hon. Friend with great admiration on these and all other matters, as I did his father, but on his interesting suggestions on a regency, and in connection with the fact that Her Majesty is one of the two rulers who are anointed, how does his regency proposal deal with the problem of the coronation oath, in which the sovereign very specifically must declare that she will support a Protestant Church as the Church of England?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We are legislating now for the succession of the Crown; the coronation oath is legislated for as well. We could legislate to take account of that in such a way that the sovereign would not be able to obstruct the Protestant faith, and would therefore be obliged to give the supreme governorship of the Church of England to a regent. That is a way to get around the problem of the unfairness and lack of tolerance in an age that is tolerant, and yet protect the interests of the Church of England. I am reluctant ever to disagree with my right hon. Friend, who is the wisest Member of the House, and not just by virtue of being the Father of the House. History usually says he is right—he has been right on so many issues in the past 50 years—so it is with considerable reluctance that I disagree with him, but I think the problem he mentions could be solved.
	New clause 1 would be a simple, easy change that would provide for the Church of England and deal with other areas of the world where the Queen is sovereign. It would not perpetuate an unfairness and deals with reality.

Alan Beith: May I ask the hon. Gentleman about what seems to be at least a technical defect in the new clause? If the sovereign decides not to declare to the Privy Council that he or she is a Catholic, the procedure for ensuring that there is a Protestant supreme governor of the Church of England is not activated or brought into force.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is a fantastically late 17th century point. The language of coronation oaths of the late 17th century shows that people are obsessed by Jesuit dissemblers and believe that a sovereign who wants to get around the oath will come to the throne—he could have his fingers crossed behind his back or, even worse, a dispensation from the Pope saying that he is allowed to say that he is a good, honest Protestant when he is not. A sovereign is not likely to behave in that type of Jesuitical dissembling way. Our sovereigns tend to be good, upright and honest sovereigns rather than sovereigns who deceive us as to their religion. That is likely to remain the case.
	I have dealt with new clause 1, and should like briefly to deal with amendments 1 and 2, which I tabled. The amendments are in honour of Henry IV of Navarre—not our Henry IV but the French Henry IV. He is supposed to have said—historians argue over this, as they argue over anything—that Paris is worth a mass. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), among others, discussed when somebody was deemed to be in communion with Rome for the purposes of the Act of Settlement and whether somebody would be excluded if they said, on becoming sovereign, “No, I’m not a Catholic,” when they had been christened or taken first communion as a Catholic.
	Amendment 1 would make it clear that such a person would not be excluded at that point. It is separate from new clause 1 and has a different effect, but the clarification depends on allowing marriage to a Catholic. That is to say, as I said last week, that the canon law of the Catholic Church requires a party to a mixed marriage to use his or her best efforts to bring up a child of that marriage in the Catholic religion. If a party to a mixed marriage with an heir to the throne followed his or her Catholic requirement, the child would be excluded under a straight reading of the Act of Settlement, which I do not think is the intention of the Bill.

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to address an interesting point through his amendments. However, would it not be fair to say that the Catholic spouse of an heir to the throne might feel that, with the full might of the British establishment against them, they had made every endeavour and been unsuccessful?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is perfectly possible, but at what point would we know that that was the case? It seems to me that it is very important that we know who our sovereign is. We do not want to go through the courts to try to establish whether the child was brought up as a Catholic and was therefore in communion with Rome and excluded under the provisions of the Act of Settlement.
	My amendments do not seek to change the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England. They are separate from the new clause, but simply state that a child brought up as a Catholic would not be deemed
	“for ever incapable of succeeding to the Crown”,
	which is the language used in the Act of Settlement about Catholics succeeding to the Crown. The question of eligibility could be clarified at the point of succession.

Alan Beith: Does not the hon. Gentleman’s amendment address a situation that has arisen in other Protestant monarchies of northern Europe in which someone who had been brought up a Catholic decided to convert to being a Protestant when joining the royal family? Does it not look as if the wording of the Act of Settlement makes a once-and-for-all decision as soon as any kind of commitment is registered and should we not be clear that someone is free to make a choice at a later stage in their life?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend. The Act of Settlement deems somebody who has been a Catholic for a minute to be dead in terms of the succession, and it passes over them as if they were dead. Once we allow the marriage of a Catholic into the line of succession to the throne, that provision makes absolutely no sense. We could be arguing that at the point of a Catholic baptism, the child was a Catholic even though it given no personal agreement to its religion and should be disbarred from the throne.

Jim Cunningham: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about confirmation?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is right that a child who decided to be confirmed as a Catholic would be excluded, but it is perfectly possible, not least because our Churches are coming closer together, for somebody to be confirmed a Catholic at the age of 12 or 13 but to decide on finding at the age of 23 that the throne was about to be offered to him that he might prefer to be an Anglican. We need to be clear about when people are excluded, so that if an heir to the throne decided that the religious bar meant that becoming King of England was worth changing religion for, the result would be clear and decisive. We do not want the monarchy to pass from one generation to the next only for us to have to go to court to work out who our sovereign will be based on the wording of a 1701 Act of Parliament.

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman posits a situation in which someone gives up his Catholic faith for the Crown, but he must surely be aware that in mixed marriages it is not at all uncommon for children to experience aspects of both denominations and, at some point in their life, to make a choice that might debar them from the throne.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Once again, I am in entire agreement with my right hon. Friend. It is important that the decision is made at the point of succession so that that flexibility is allowed. In ordinary family life in some mixed marriages, couples go to an Anglican service one week and a Catholic service the next.

John McDonnell: I do not say this with any personal interest, but where does someone who has been excommunicated stand in all this?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope is not in that unhappy state, that an excommunicated Catholic would be excluded from succession to the Crown because that person would have been in communion with Rome at some point. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead. That cannot be the intention of the clause that allows a Catholic to marry an heir to the throne. That will simply create confusion and we will not know who the monarch is going to be.

Michael Ellis: I think that, in canon law, it may be canon 1125 which refers to best endeavours. Is it not the case that he who brings up a child in the Catholic faith or attempts to do so by using best endeavours is defeated in those endeavours if it be a legal impossibility? So the issue as to the connection of that infant child to the Crown and the Catholicism or otherwise of that infant child is dealt with in that way. Best endeavours cannot be achieved if it is a legal impossibility.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend misses the point. It is a question of the succession. It may be that somebody has been brought up as a Catholic who is relatively remote from succeeding to the Crown, but in a “Kind Hearts and Coronets” way suddenly becomes much closer. That person would be excluded, but more importantly, the best efforts issue means that there is a lack of clarity as to whether or not such a child has been excluded.
	Are we saying that a Catholic can marry into the Crown but must then immediately say, on the birth of any child, that this child has not been anywhere near a Catholic church? How are we classifying this connection with Rome that in the Act of Settlement is a very broad connection for a very good reason: at that point people were worried about the Old Pretender. They thought that his Catholic upbringing made him a threat from the moment of his birth. That is why it is all-encompassing, and we are now amending the law to allow a Catholic to marry into the throne, without dealing with the technicalities that follow from that.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most important role of the Head of State is to act in the interests of the country when a Prime Minister acts in her or his own interest? Looking back at monarchs, the Queen has behaved immaculately throughout her reign. There have been grave doubts about some of her predecessors and doubts about her possible successors. Is it not much more important that we choose the character of the monarch, rather than the religion?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think the monarchy should be an hereditary monarchy and should go through the nearest line that is available. I do not think there should be a character test for the monarch. The great and weighty responsibilities of monarchs turn people into serious-minded individuals capable of that great honour who sometimes in their youth were not capable of it. One
	thinks immediately of Henry V and also of Edward VII, both men who, in their youth, were relatively irresponsible, but when that great honour of being King of England fell upon their shoulders, they rose to it magnificently—gloriously, regardless of their religion.
	All I am trying to do is make sure that in future we know that the monarchy is safe and secure and to whom it has passed—that we do not open it up for the courts to say, “Well, this person once went to a Catholic church. This person had a Catholic baptism. Therefore let us go to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), who is 190th or some such in line to the throne, and who, having been perfectly Protestant all his life, might be very suitable.”
	We need to be clear because so many functions of this nation would be thrown into doubt if there were no Crown. If we are risking people being ineligible for the Crown because of shoddy legislation, we then face the prospect of being unable to use the prerogative powers, which might make it quite difficult to open Parliament.

John McDonnell: I attached my name to these amendments because they reflect an amendment I tabled for last week’s debate that was not selected. I wish to explain why I did that, for the record and for some of my constituents and other supporters who might find it a bit bizarre.
	Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), those who have participated in the debate so far have had an interest either as monarchists or, in the context of the amendment, as Catholics. I am not a monarchist—I am a republican; I see the monarchy as a complete anachronism—and I am, at best, a lapsed Catholic, as the parish priest optimistically describes me.
	Over the past 10 or 15 years, I have sat in this Chamber on a number of occasions when successive Members have tried to remove anti-Catholic discrimination from our legislation. Dr Evan Harris and John Gummer did that when they were Members of this House. The simple reason, they argued—I fully agree—is that we in this House should not allow our institutions and our legislation to be founded on or framed by discrimination. This measure is the last remnant of anti-Catholic discrimination that sits within our laws. Frankly, it is offensive to discriminate on religious grounds, and every Government in recent years has said so. We have legislated time and again to remove such discrimination, so why can we not do it in this case?
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) went through a trajectory of 300 years in the space of one speech; it has a been a major breakthrough to bring him into the 21st century. As he argued very eloquently, on whatever grounds this discrimination was introduced centuries ago, it is no longer relevant, and I am convinced that at some point it will be challengeable in other forums and courts. This is an ideal opportunity to say to the outside world that we will not tolerate discrimination of any sort. It is anti-Catholic discrimination that has historically been present in this kind of legislation, but such discrimination pertains to every other religion as well. We have heard potential successors to the Crown say that they are happy to be seen not as defenders of the faith but defenders of faith; if that is the case, so be it. We have an opportunity to send out a message that we are opposed to all
	discrimination, that we accept that the institutions we establish should not be founded on discriminatory legislation, and that we will remove this stain from the character of this House and our constitution.
	John Gummer and Dr Evan Harris argued their cases extremely eloquently, more so than I can. When I left the Chamber after those debates, I thought, “If I were a member of a particular religion and that barred me from a particular office, I would find it offensive.” We might think that this debate is about something that is necessarily insubstantial in the everyday workings of our society and our lives, but it is not; it is about a symbol of past discrimination that must be removed. By removing that stain, we can go forward into a modern society

Martin Horwood: The amendment is framed in anti-disestablishmentarianistic language, in that it creates a rather exotic formula, but is not the inevitable consequence of debating this matter that it will lead us towards a debate on establishment and the role of the Church of England as the state Church, the role of the Supreme Head of the Church of England, and the title of Defender of the Faith, which was awarded to Henry VIII during the time of his communion with Rome?

John McDonnell: I agree that this will lead to that debate, but I am happy to take these reforms one step at a time. That is why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is extremely clever, because it would enable those who wish to maintain the established Church and not to move towards the disestablishment debate to pause at this stage.
	I think it is inevitable that that debate will come back, but it is not for today. Today is about removing the way in which we discriminate against those who are not members of, or in communion with, the Church of England. This is a way of removing the ostracism of the past. It is time to send out a message that this is a modern, multicultural society, with people of all faiths and of no faith, and that no one should be discriminated against at any level of society, from the monarchy right through to every other institution. Let us seize this opportunity.

Michael Ellis: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the obnoxious nature of any legislation, however ancient it may be, that is prejudicial to any religion. Those of my faith and many others are also excluded in the same way, because of that legislation. Why does he think that, whereas other examples of bias towards or prejudice against other religions have been done away with centuries ago, in many cases, or certainly many decades ago, this one remains? Does he think it might be due to the internecine complexity of the issue, rather than any prejudice?

John McDonnell: That may well have been the case in the past, but I think we have moved on. When the issue was debated in a different form—I think it was on a private Member’s Bill promoted by Evan Harris—Lord Falconer did the maths, calculated the large number of descendants that could have a claim to the throne and
	argued that we did not have parliamentary time and that the issue was irrelevant anyway. If we change the proposal on marriage, however, it may soon become very relevant, because we would not want to bar a future monarch from marrying a Catholic, a Jew or a Muslim. I think that that will come on to the agenda very quickly, whereas in the past parliamentary time was not found for it because it was not seen to be relevant.

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree, having been present at previous debates, that the objection to breaking the taboo about the royal succession comes from those who say that once we get rid of this particular indefensible idiocy, the other foolishness involved in the royal succession will be exposed and people will come up with suggestions to reform the whole system so that we can have a monarchy or Head or State who are electable?

John McDonnell: I assure the House that supporting the amendment is not my cunning plan to get rid of the monarchy overnight. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be a debate as we move through this century about all our institutions, including the monarchy. That is why I was disappointed that his amendments were not selected, because I think we should have had a debate about alternative forms of Heads of State and the ways in which we can select them, rather than let the position be gained as a result of hereditary entitlement.
	I will leave my argument there. I needed to put on the record why I put my name to the proposed new clause and why I tabled a similar amendment. It is about ending discrimination. On Saturday, I attended the annual dinner for pensioners organised by Botwell Catholic church St Vincent de Paul Society. When I told them about the two things that we were legislating on this week, the women cheered for ending gender discrimination, but everyone cheered for ending discrimination against Catholics. I say to hon. Members that this is not an historic thing—it is relevant. If someone in this country is born Catholic or into any other religion, or if they have no faith, and they are still discriminated against, that is unacceptable, as successive Governments and Members of this House have said. Now is the opportunity to legislate on it.

Edward Leigh: I start by echoing what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. He has put the case simply: in this day and age, when it comes to a person’s suitability to become the Head of State, they should not be discriminated against because of their religion. That is why I was happy to put my name to the new clause, moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and to his amendments.
	I have been campaigning for years against barring Catholics from either marrying into the royal family or succeeding to the throne, particularly the first issue, which is bizarre. Indeed, I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill and tabled early-day motions on the subject. We were constantly told that it was all too difficult and complicated to change, and that we would have to change hundreds of lines of legislation in hundreds of Acts of Parliament. But, hey presto! It is now being done. Although the Deputy Prime Minister gets a lot of
	stick in this House—including from Government Members —and in the media, I am on the record as warmly congratulating him on being the first leading member of this or any Government to get a grip on this issue and to try to solve it.
	However, there is one final logical absurdity, which my hon. Friend is trying to address. I repeat this point because it is worth making: in this day and age, a person should not be barred from a position such as Head of State just because of their religion or lack of religion. There are many people in this House who have no religion and who do not wish to come to Prayers or who do so just to reserve their place. They are just as worth while as Members. There is no reason why we have to keep this bar in place.
	I am a traditionalist, like my hon. Friend. Even if the new clause were accepted by the Government, it is extremely unlikely that it would be activated in our lifetimes, or indeed ever. As far as I know, there is no likelihood of Prince Charles or Prince William becoming a Catholic. It is therefore somewhat academic, but just because an amendment is academic does not mean that it is not worth debating and acting on if it is the logical and right thing to do. It is unlikely to be activated not just because of the nature of the likely successors to the throne, but because a person who is brought up as a member of the royal family is surely extremely unlikely to want to bar themselves from the throne or put their chances of succeeding to the throne at risk.

Bob Stewart: It may be much more likely that the heir to the throne would become an atheist. The problem would have to be addressed in those circumstances.

Edward Leigh: Indeed, it might happen that somebody becomes an atheist or an agnostic, or does not want to be a member of the Anglican faith. By the way, I have enormous sympathy, respect and, indeed, love for the Anglican faith, which is inherent in the traditions of our country. However, it is perfectly possible that in some future generation, somebody will not want to be part of it for quite profound reasons of personal conscience. That is why this matter is important. It is not just an academic, legalistic debating point; it is a matter of deep personal conscience. What is more important to an individual than their faith or lack of faith? It is somewhat strange in the modern age to say to somebody that if they want to become the head of this particular state, that job goes with being a member of a particular Christian denomination. It does not fit in with what we do in many other areas of our national life.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments about the glories of the Anglican Church. The new clause should not, in any way, be seen as an attack on the Anglican Church. Indeed, it contains specific protections for the Church.

Edward Leigh: I, too, want to be absolutely clear about that. As I am speaking, people’s minds might be ticking over thinking, “Oh, here’s just another Catholic pushing his own religion.” This is not about my belief at all. I am very ecumenical. I am a member of Lincoln cathedral council. I think that the Anglican liturgy is wonderful in
	every single respect. My hon. Friend and I are traditionalists. In no way are we attacking the Anglican Church or, most importantly, the fact of this country having an established religion. That is important.
	One of the single most dangerous aspects of modern life—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will no longer follow my argument; indeed, he will strongly disagree with me—is the advance of secularism and the fact that religion is retreating from more and more aspects of national life. Even “The Sunday Half Hour” on Radio 2 on Sunday nights has been banished to 6.30 in the morning. Maintaining the established Church as a symbol—only a symbol—is terribly important, as is what my hon. Friend is doing today. He is trying to square the circle, to be absolutely fair and say that as a modern nation we should respect people’s conscience to maintain their own religion—or lack of it—and succeed to the headship of state. He is also trying to protect the established Church, and although other solutions might have been offered, including the one proposed earlier that the Archbishop of Canterbury could become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the idea of a regency is good and squares the circle.
	However, such a situation is extremely unlikely because, as I said, I am sure that anybody brought up in that environment would want to remain in the Anglican Church. I understand that James III of blessed memory, the Old Pretender, whose portrait, as you know Mr Deputy Speaker, hangs in Stonyhurst college in your constituency, was offered the throne on the condition that he renounced his faith. He refused to do that although he could have succeeded Queen Anne. In fact, I understand that about 50 people had a superior hereditary claim to George I, but they were all bypassed because, as my hon. Friend has made clear, there was in those days an absolute obsession about ensuring an Anglican Head of State.
	We do not want to get too enmeshed in those arguments, but to be trapped at the beginning of the 21st century in arguments that raged at the beginning of the 18th century is frankly absurd. To remain trapped in the Act of Settlement, when there is absolutely no risk in a secular, modern, multicultural and multiracial nation of some sort of Catholic plot to take it over, is ridiculous.

John McDonnell: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his earlier statement in which he was convinced that a person brought up in an Anglican environment will naturally become an Anglican? At some stage we will get to a situation where an Anglican Head of State says, “I don’t believe any more.” Are we asking them to abdicate?

Edward Leigh: Well, the Anglican Church is a very relaxed Church, and many Anglican bishops have fairly broad views about the existence of God. The hon. Gentleman’s point is apposite.

Chris Bryant: I delight in the relaxed nature of the Anglican communion. I am slightly worried, however, because the hon. Gentleman says there is not a Catholic plot yet he asserts there was a James III. If there had indeed been James III, there would not be Elizabeth II.

Edward Leigh: It was a joke. I am very loyal to the Saxe- Coburg and Windsor line and a great supporter of the Queen. As it happens, even if I wanted to be a Jacobite it would be difficult because they have all died out. The last one became a cardinal—[Interruption.] May I proclaim my loyalty to the Crown, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Dan Rogerson: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has not been on the telephone earlier today to the Duke of Bavaria to pledge his support in the future—

Edward Leigh: No, I am not a supporter of the Duke of Bavaria.

Michael Ellis: My hon. Friend mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury potentially taking over the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but would that not be rather incongruous? The Archbishop of Canterbury, at least in theory, is appointed by the sovereign. The sovereign would therefore be appointing an archbishop who would then take over their role, as far as the primacy of the Church is concerned.

Edward Leigh: This was an idea proffered by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and perhaps it was a mistake for me even to mention it. We are now in danger of dancing on the head of a pin and getting into a level of complexity that is not helping the argument.
	The simple truth on which we should focus, as a modern Parliament, is that people should not be disbarred from a job—especially one in which they would represent all people, such as Head of State—just because of their religion or lack of it. The current bar is not even logical in its own terms. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has made clear, it does not apply to Scotland, where the Queen is not the head of the Church, and it would not apply to countries like Australia and Canada. So even in its own terms, what the Government are trying to do is illogical. We all know that they are trying to do it to preserve the established Church, because—like me—they believe it to be important. But it is perfectly possible both to respect people’s conscience and to maintain the established Church and this figurehead post—and it is only a figurehead post. Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I invented it as a post of real power and authority, but nobody actually suggests that in reality the queen or king in a modern country tries to interfere with the established Church, although they may sign off the appointment of bishops. Unlike Mary Tudor, Henry VIII or Elizabeth I—or even Charles I—a modern queen or king does not try to ensure that their own people are made bishops, or determine whether the Church is high church or low church. It is absurd. Supreme Governor is only an honorific post, and it is not therefore necessary that the king or queen is Supreme Governor. I do not want to get rid of the post—it is deep within our traditions and there is nothing wrong with it—and my hon. Friend’s proposal gets around the problem.

Alan Beith: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Queen has no relationship with the Church of Scotland, when in fact she appoints the
	Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly, and it is the Church that she has consistently and regularly attended in Scotland throughout her life.

Edward Leigh: If I made a bad or weak point, I willingly withdraw it and accept my right hon. Friend’s superior knowledge.
	Amendment 1 makes an important point. It is almost as important as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made. If the legislation stays as it is, we will return to the world of the Act of Settlement, in which people were incredibly suspicious of some kind of papist plot. If someone had been tarnished in any way at any time in their life with Catholicism, they were excluded from the throne. As it happens, my eldest son is 640th in line to the throne, because he is descended from the Electress Sophia through his mother. He is not excluded from the throne as he was baptised as Russian Orthodox, although he has been raised a Catholic. So in our family we have found a way around the bar, but if the Bill stays as it is, we will return to a ridiculous, bizarre and absurd situation in which someone must never, at any point in their life, have taken communion in a Catholic church. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are many mixed marriages and we go to each other’s churches regularly. Even those who oppose new clause 1 must accept that the logical and right thing to do is for the person to be able to make an election at the time they become Head of State.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry to be pedantic, but the hon. Gentleman has made the same mistake several times in this debate and in previous debates. There is no such thing as Russian Orthodox baptism. There is Christian baptism, end of story. All Churches accept one another’s baptisms. The one difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church—and perhaps as a Roman Catholic he could persuade senior people in his Church to change their position—is that the Catholic Church believes that Anglican orders are null and void.

Edward Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you will rule me out of order if I get into the intricacies of baptism, and which baptism is recognised by which church. In fact, the Catholic Church does recognise Russian Orthodox baptisms and considers itself in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. The problem lies not with the Catholic Church, but with the Russian Orthodox Church, which does not want Catholics to take communion in its churches.
	We are in danger of becoming enmeshed in the kind of arguments that enveloped us at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. All my hon. Friend is trying to say in these very simple amendments is that, even if one supports the legislation as it is currently drafted, surely one should have the right to be judged on one’s faith at the time that one becomes Head of State or wants to become Head of State, and not be judged on what baptism one has received, what churches one attended in the past or what communion one has taken. Amendment 1, therefore, is even more important and apposite than new clause 1.
	I will end on this point. As unlikely as it is in the near future that anybody will be banned from the throne of England because of their faith, I hope that we in this House do not accept the current situation when we have
	a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the law. We have been told so often that this is so complex and difficult to do that it may be the only chance in a generation. Is today not our chance in our time to stand up for religious freedom once and for all, and to say that all the disputes and hatreds of the past are now finished and that no office, however great, will be barred to someone because of their faith?

Paul Flynn: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and wonderful to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who does his job so well as the Member of Parliament for the middle ages. It feels as though he is not just making history, but part of history.
	It is extraordinary that a Bill presented as a reform or great change would actually put into law the concept of arranged marriages. We are very sniffy about them when we consider other religions and other parts of the world where one member of a family has absolute power in arranging the marriages of relatives, but that is what we are doing in this great reforming Bill. I do not know where the idea comes from that one person should be allowed to dictate the marital choices of six of her—later his—relatives. Is this a Liberal Democrat Bill? Is this the cutting edge of the future reforming zeal of the Liberal Democrat party: to espouse the concept of arranged marriages? This is the modern world.
	In another part of the Bill acting as a reform, we are denying the opportunity to 87% of our population of ever achieving the job of Head of State. We are excluding and discriminating against atheists, non-conformists, Catholics, Jews and Muslims, who can never be Head of State: that is what we are being asked to approve today. It is perhaps not the reform we were looking forward to.
	The traditions of the Church have been referred to. I find little difference between the high Church of England and Roman Catholicism, particularly now that Roman Catholicism has, lamentably, dropped the Latin language, which was a great joy to my youth:
	“Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.”
	When I was in my “juventutem”, it was a matter of some pleasure—a joy, an education and a great richness—but it has gone now. What on earth is the difference that we are talking about?
	I hope to speak briefly, because I think there may be some puzzlement among my constituents—

Nigel Evans: Order. The hon. Gentleman says that he will speak briefly. Will he, for the rest of his speech, speak in English so that we can all understand it? Clearly, we have not all been educated to the high level of Paul Flynn.

Paul Flynn: I am very happy to speak in Middle English:
	“Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote
	The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote”.
	Middle English would be appropriate for the age in which some of the Government Members—

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman is giving away his age. If he could please keep to common English. Thank you.

Paul Flynn: It is interesting that we have got on to linguistic discrimination. I could stay within the rules of the House and speak in Middle English, which very few, if any, people in the House speak, but I am denied the opportunity to speak in the language of Wales, which has the same authority and respect in this House as spitting on the carpet, where it is ruled as “unruly behaviour”. However, I will move on.
	What is important in a Head of State? It is character, not religion. I am not allowed to be offensive to members of the royal family, because we are bound by rules that were created in the 13th century. I can do it outside this place, but not in Parliament—part of the infantilism of Parliament.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is completely wrong. In the 13th century, 14th century, 15th century, 16th century and 17th century, Members of the House of Commons were regularly very rude about members of the royal family. The idea that we cannot be rude about members of the royal family comes from the 19th century.

Paul Flynn: I am informed otherwise by those who perhaps have an even greater knowledge of this place than others—it goes back a long way.
	The practical situation is that if we talk about the choice of Head of State, we can make only favourable comments about the people concerned. It is not difficult to say anything favourable about our present Queen, who has had a remarkable reign and has never interfered with politics in any way. However, if we look back at her immediate predecessors—again, without being derogatory —her father had an unhappy time and her uncle was a very unsuitable monarch, and her great grandfather and various others were not suitable.
	There are grave doubts about the immediate successor, which are well known. There are many doubts about him and we are not even allowed to know what he wrote in letters to Ministers a few years ago. [Interruption.] “Quite right”, says an hon. Member. Who are we to know? We are only the elected people of this country. We are the representatives of the nation, not someone who happened to be first past the bedpost some time ago. That does not qualify him to make the crucial decisions he would have take, which is common in most countries where they have an elected state and the Head of State is there to keep the Prime Minister in control. That might have been necessary in the dying days of Mrs Thatcher’s rule, the details of which I gave last week—

Nigel Evans: Order. Perhaps we can get back to new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2.

Paul Flynn: I will speak about new clause 1, as you rightly say, Mr Deputy Speaker, though these remarks are of relevance.
	The suggestion is that we have a regent: a piece of ingenious constitutional gibberish that is part of the past rather than the future. We should be legislating for the future. Let us look at what we have got. I am still baffled—I cannot get these things across to the Table
	Office—as to how these outrageous decisions we are taking are consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. Article 9 of the convention states:
	“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
	That is enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998—not 1598 or 1298. It goes on:
	“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
	What has this got to do with a democratic society? This is about an autocratic society and a monarchy that have contributed nothing to our progress over the years. Rather, they have been an obstacle to democratic reform for centuries.
	How can the Government claim that the Bill is consistent with the Human Rights Act? The rationale is there for a legal challenge. I am sure one will be made before long. There is no statutory law of male preference primogeniture for royal succession; it is common law construct that has become codified by practice over the centuries. The heirs of Sophia of Hanover currently have the sole right, enshrined in law under the Act of Settlement, to succeed to the English Crown, with all that that implies in terms of rights and entitlements of the English monarch as de facto Head of State.
	I want to clear up one point. There is a belief that the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is 246th in line to the throne, and according to Wikipedia, the authority for that claim is the blog of “Mr Paul Flynn”. I advise anyone who wishes to repeat that claim to treat it with some caution, because I know the process by which the number was arrived at, and no other authority makes the claim.
	The Bill seeks to extend by law the rights in the Act of Settlement to all heirs of Sophia of Hanover, not just to the boys and men who would succeed under common law principles. By so doing, however, it seeks to create binding rights in law in favour of a very small group of additional potential future beneficiaries among the female heirs of Sophia of Hanover on the basis of birth alone.

Michael Ellis: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that the monarchy had done nothing in the past 100 years for the advent of democracy in this country. May I suggest that he is wholly and unavowedly in error and that in fact the monarchy has done much in the last 100 years and more to act as a pillar in the protection of democracy?

Paul Flynn: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. We are now generalising the debate and not really focusing on new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2. Mr Flynn, will you please focus on the new clause and amendments?

Paul Flynn: I would be delighted, but let me say—although I probably should not—that the contribution of royalty has been of one head, grudgingly donated.
	The Bill appears prima facie to be incompatible with article 1 of protocol 12 of the European convention on human rights, which forbids discrimination on the grounds of birth in any right created by law. Perhaps the Government would like to think about that point. We are creating not only a piece of new discrimination, new unfairness and new gender bias, but something that is in conflict with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.
	It would be good to know what advice the Government have had on the Bill. I have tried to question the Government about this, but they have been reluctant to answer. The Bill states that it complies with the relevant rights. Nevertheless, this is one of the most atrocious Bills ever to come before the House. So many Bills have unintended consequences, however, and this one opens a Pandora’s box on the royal succession: those who believed that the rules were set immutably in stone now know that they are not, and now that there has been one change, there can be many others.
	We must move forward to an adult, 21st-century choice of Head of State, as have most countries in the world—those free nations that elect their Head of State and give their entire population the chance to be elected. Under the Bill, however, only members of the Church of England can become Head of State. The Church in Wales has pedigree. The Celtic Church existed long before the Roman Church—this European import—came along to take over the country, and we have the great saints Illtyd, Dyfrig, Samson and a string of other great saints.

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about the Celtic Church—as I did in an intervention—but I am sure that the Celtic monasteries would have accepted the primacy of Rome. The Synod of Whitby settled some of these matters once and for all, so although there might have been differences, it would have accepted the primacy of Rome.

Paul Flynn: I might address that point later, but the saints—Piran and the rest of them—are celebrated to this day in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. It is an independent Church and one that has been disestablished since the 1920s. It has none of the problems that we have today because it is disestablished. It has even supplied a brilliant Archbishop of Canterbury.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman must admit that even the Celtic Church was introduced into these isles by the Roman empire, so it kind of counts as a European import.

Paul Flynn: I look back with some fondness to the Roman empire as a time when we had a common currency in Europe. The hon. Gentleman might remember that the great Euro-world of the Roman empire was followed by the dark ages. In my constituency 2,000 years ago, two languages were on the lips of the children—Latin and Welsh. I rejoice that—this says a lot about its sustainability and survival—Welsh is still heard on the lips of our children, whereas we do not get many people speaking Latin these days, except for the hon. Member for the middle ages himself, the hon. Member for North East Somerset. Nevertheless, it is part of our inheritance.

Nigel Evans: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman’s speech might be on a loop. He started with this, and I think he is now coming to an end, is he not? Will he perhaps concentrate on new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2?

Paul Flynn: I am delighted to support new clause 1 —it is a minute improvement to the Bill—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press it to a Division, so that we can support his cause and stand up for a minor improvement to end the grotesque religious intolerance in the Act of Settlement.

Alan Beith: I wish to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which raise an important point.
	It was a bit much for the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to lambast the Government for introducing a Bill that removes gender discrimination in the royal family—something that the last Labour Government said they wanted to do but never got around to completing—and deals with the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and the limitation on sovereigns being married to a Roman Catholic. Were the Bill to cover the much wider issues of disestablishment or of whether the sovereign should no longer hold the position they currently hold in the Church of England, it would be a different Bill and a much wider consultation would have taken place.
	The intention of the Bill might be frustrated, however, if the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is right, because the wording of the Act of Settlement about who is a Catholic is very detailed and picks up on almost any evidence of any connection with the Catholic Church at any time in the person’s life. As we discussed earlier, it is highly likely that the child of a mixed marriage will have experienced both denominations —and perhaps the Church of Scotland as well. Many parents offer their children the opportunity to see what different Churches have to offer.

Bob Stewart: As I understand it, Her Majesty the Queen has attended a Roman Catholic service at some stage in her life. Does that taint her under the old rules?

Alan Beith: It depends whether one thinks that Her Majesty was reconciled to Rome by that action, which did not involve being in communion with the Church of Rome—something from which the Church of Rome would exclude Her Majesty in any event—so it is only on the first of those two possibilities that what my hon. Friend describes might be so regarded. I do not regard it as such, because “reconciled” in that legislation meant accepting the authority of the papacy over the Church in England. That was what the argument was really about. Members of all Churches are very much reconciled to each other these days, because they realise that they share a common faith that is more important than their points of difference.

Edward Leigh: To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) through my right hon. Friend, the Queen has attended vespers at Westminster cathedral, but in her entire reign she has been very careful never to attend a Catholic mass. Dare I say that I think that in this day and age that sort of care is not necessary?

Alan Beith: Perhaps we should not get into a discussion about precisely how the Queen has dealt with these matters. From my standpoint, I see her as someone who has used her position in the Church of England in a way that is generally beneficial to society, by setting out the importance of spiritual things and laying emphasis—as she did in her most recent Christmas broadcast—on some of the moral and ethical conclusions that one might draw from these things. That is something of a satisfaction to non-conformists, Roman Catholics and members of the Church of Scotland, with which she has a continuing relationship—it is her Church in Scotland. In all those respects she has been exemplary in the way she has used those positions.
	However, I turn to amendments 1 and 2, because—

Michael Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alan Beith: I want to get on to amendments 1 and 2, because I am anxious that we get this right and I am interested in what the Government have to say about them.
	It seems to me that the wording in the Act of Settlement might well preclude someone who, let us say, as a teenager or young adult chooses to be in the Church of England rather than the Catholic Church, having had experience of both in their lives. They could be automatically excluded by those features of their early involvement with the Roman Catholic Church that fell within the extended definition in the Act of Settlement of what constitutes having been a Catholic. Unless we deal with that, our legislation will be defective and will fail to fulfil its intended purpose, because at some future date it might exclude someone from being the sovereign even though they were in communion with the Church of England and wanted to uphold the Protestant reformed religion, as the coronation oath requires.

Mark Durkan: I have attached my name to amendments 1 and 2, but not to new clause 1. That is not because I particularly disagree with the point that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is trying to make in new clause 1, but in many ways because I am sensitive about such issues, as someone who is not a British national, but a citizen of the Irish Republic—that is the passport I carry; therefore I see myself as a citizen of a nation that does indeed have an elected Head of State.
	I come to this House not to disrespect any of the institutions that are cherished by other Members and that are part of the British constitutional settlement. Where I can, I will support moves to remove and relieve aspects of discrimination wherever we find them. I said last week that this Bill does two valuable things in that it removes a layer of gender discrimination in the succession to the Crown and it lifts one layer of religious discrimination —the bar on a Catholic marrying the heir to the throne. However, as we heard in last week’s debate, those proposals in themselves leave many questions. As we heard, for some of us, one question concerns the remaining areas of discrimination, whereby anybody who at any stage in their lives had either been a Catholic or been deemed to be a Catholic would be barred from being an heir to the throne. In effect, it is the McCarthyite question: “Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic?” For anybody who has ever been a Catholic in any shape or form, that
	is it—they are out; they count as dead for these purposes. Clearly that is wrong and anomalous. I do not believe that, in passing this Bill, the House should choose to say, “Well, we still want to keep that—it’s about right that we keep it.”
	That is what amendments 1 and 2 are really about. They essentially say that whatever arrangement might be made to accommodate someone who has been a Catholic or been deemed to have been a Catholic—or who deem themselves to have been a Catholic—that person cannot be barred from succeeding to the throne on the basis that they have been a Catholic at any stage in their lives. That is why I put my name to amendments 1 and 2—because I believe they simply remove that remaining discrimination.
	The main reason for not putting my name to new clause 1 is simply respect for the Church of England. Obviously I am not an Anglican, and I am not even English. In many ways I feel sorry for the Church of England. In a way, because it is an established Church, everybody keeps taking slices off it, on one issue or another. In many ways, we as legislators find ourselves invited to vote or decide on matters pertaining to the Church of England, whereas I would be much more comfortable not encroaching on any matter relating to the Church of England’s life as a Church. That is why I have not put my name to new clause 1, which does at least deal cleverly and constructively with the other question that arose for Members last week, which was: if the heir to the throne were allowed to marry a Catholic, what would happen if a child of that marriage was then a Catholic? That would affect issues around the succession to the throne—it would affect the Protestant ascendancy, as we heard last week—as well as the Church of England.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset has tried to address and reflect on the arguments and concerns that arose on both sides of the issues raised by this Bill. I therefore hope that the Government will respond to this debate by making it clear that they agree that Parliament will have to go further, because to say, “Well, we don’t have any more to do,”—to suggest that the possibility of a Catholic marrying the heir to the throne and their children perhaps being raised as Catholics would not raise any future questions—leaves us with a doubt, which a number of us also expressed last week, about clause 3(1). We are concerned that the power of controlling marriages—which, for the first six people in line to the throne, remains in the hands of sovereign under this Bill—will in effect be the way to deal with any risk that might arise of someone who has been raised as a Catholic at any point being close in the line of succession to the throne.
	There are therefore genuine issues and questions left by the degree to which the Government have legislated to date, as well as the form and limits of the legislation to date. Unless those other issues are addressed—by these amendments or others—the Government will leave us still harbouring the doubt that clause 3(1) is really about ensuring that the issues opened up by clause 2 will never actually arise in practice. I do not believe that is good enough. We as legislators cannot say, “We’re going to put in place flawed legislation that we know gives rise to all these other questions, but we’re content either that it’s not going to happen or that it’s not going
	to happen soon enough.” As legislators, we have to address things in our time according to what is right, what is fair and what is proper. In the 21st century, we should not be leaving any residual form of discrimination against any person of any one religion.

Wayne David: I must begin by saying that I do not have to declare an interest in the debate today, in that I am not related in any way to any member of the royal family—unlike some Members of the House. Nor am I related to a Welsh saint; I have been assured that, despite my name, there is no connection whatever.
	I rise to respond to this excellent debate with some trepidation. I have to express some strong reservations, but I want to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). His speech introducing the new clause was a veritable tour de force, if I may use that language. It was a wonderful speech; it is a long time since we have heard such a wonderfully erudite exposition in the House. It was very much about equality between the members of all religious faiths and none in regard to the ability to hold the position of monarch of this country. That theme was taken up powerfully by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who said that new clause 1 highlighted what many people consider to be a continuing anachronism.
	It should be recognised, as several constitutional historians have done, that the monarchy today has a number of symbolic roles attached to it, including the Head of the Commonwealth and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Some might question whether it is correct to describe those roles as symbolic, but the reality is that we live in an increasingly secular society and that many people are now quite rightly questioning the close connection between Church and state.
	There is no doubt in my mind that Parliament must have this debate. We should also have a debate on the question of disestablishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) mentioned the fact that the Church in Wales had been disestablished since 1920. Speaking as a Welshman and a member of that Church, I recognise that that has created a sound constitutional relationship between that Church and the monarch in England. However, that debate and the debate on religious equality in regard to the throne are debates for another time. That is not to say that we must shy away from those debates—quite the opposite, in fact—but we must recognise that this is a limited, narrowly defined Bill.
	The Bill has had a long gestation period, starting with the work done by the previous Government and continuing under this Government. Its contents have been agreed by the Heads of Government in the Commonwealth. If the whole issue were to be reopened in the way that has been suggested, we would have to go back to square one and begin the long, convoluted process again. I am sure all Members would accept that that would be neither helpful nor desirable.
	It is also important to note, as we have been discussing the international element to the Bill in relation to the Commonwealth, that Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands might abdicate in favour of her son. I mention this because the Netherlands is one of the countries that has abolished male primogeniture, and I very much hope that the House will follow that good Dutch example.
	It was made clear in our previous debate on the Bill that although the legislation might appear straightforward at first glance, it is in fact extremely complex. The nature of the constitutional relationship between the monarchy and the Government is byzantine, to say the least, and there will inevitably be unintended consequences that will have to be scrutinised in great detail.
	I should like to ask for greater clarification on one such detail relating to new clause 1. As I understand it, the hon. Member for North East Somerset believes that the monarch could still be the head of the Church of England if he or she were in communion with the Church, but if that were not the case, he is suggesting that the next in line of succession could fulfil the role. What would happen, however, if that individual were not a member of the Church of England?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The regent would assume the role under the Regency Act 1937, which requires that the regent should meet all the criteria laid down in the Act of Settlement. They would therefore have to be a Protestant, and in communion with the Church of England. The whole point of the new clause is to ensure that the supreme governorship of the Church of England remains with a Protestant.

Wayne David: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might come back with that response. However, the difficulty with the regency legislation is that there is more than one Act. There have been a number of amending Acts. He referred to the 1937 Act, but since then there have been what some people have referred to as ad hoc departures from that legislation. In fact, the Act talks about the best person succeeding to the throne, rather than the next in line. What on earth does that mean? How do we define the “best person”? This underlines the point that the legislation will inevitably have unintended consequences that will have to be looked at in detail, with a cool head, over a reasonable period of time.
	Nevertheless, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon. We have focused on the tightly defined legislation before us, but Members have also rightly taken the opportunity to extend the debate. We have now begun to open the new chapter of constitutional debate that we need to have in this country. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will not press the new clause to a vote.

Chloe Smith: I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today for their erudite and comprehensive contributions. I join the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in being a fan of middle English and old English; if he would like to join me in the Tea Room some time, I am sure that we could discuss that.
	Through amendments 1 and 2, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is seeking to ensure that a child of the Roman Catholic faith may later convert to the Protestant faith and succeed to the throne. Let me first deal with the Government’s understanding of the Act of Settlement, which we share with him. The law in this area is certainly not easy, but on balance, we agree with his interpretation of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights as
	meaning that a Roman Catholic may not convert to the Protestant faith and then succeed to the throne. This is, however, an aspect of our constitution that we do not think has ever been tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) noted that such circumstances would be unlikely to arise within our lifetimes. The bar appears to be on anyone who has ever “professed” the Roman Catholic faith, or held communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Once disqualified, they are excluded for ever from succeeding to the throne.
	I should like to make a few points on amendments 1 and 2 before I turn to new clause 1. My first point relates to scope. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, the scope of the Bill is narrow. I appreciate that there are reasons to criticise the law as it stands, but the amendments stray into new territory and go beyond the limited aims of the Bill. In passing, I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). We missed him in the earlier debates last week, but he enlivened us today when he came as close as anyone has done in the debate to asking, “Is the Pope a Catholic?”

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If my amendments were not within the scope, Mr Speaker would surely not have selected them.

Nigel Evans: That is absolutely correct. That clarification was right; the amendments are within the scope of the Bill.

Chloe Smith: I have no intention of disputing your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that was not the intention of my comments. I merely wanted to say that this Bill has never had the intention of addressing the religion of the monarch or indeed of those in the line of succession.
	As was said repeatedly in last week’s debate, changing the law in this area would require consultation and we would need to seek the agreement of the Commonwealth realms. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and all hon. Members will be aware, that would take time, and we are anxious to ensure that the important changes the Bill is designed to make are carried through. I note that, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, years of work have gone into the Bill as it stands.

Dan Rogerson: Although I am sympathetic to the aims of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in tabling the new clause and amendments, I believe that the most powerful argument for not accepting them is the one that the Minister has just set out: we should not seek to jeopardise the Bill’s moves towards equality by amending it beyond the agreement that has already been reached. I hope, however, that she and the Government will continue to have discussions with the other realms so that if further equalities can be reached, we do not abandon the possibility of having them.

Chloe Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill. I can reassure him and all Members that we are in working contact with the other realms, but we do not expect radical departures from the scope in any particular realm.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that in this particular case, what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just shown is that what has been completely settled and without question can now be open to challenge? Does she believe that this is a sensible way to proceed when overturning 1,000 years of British history?

Chloe Smith: I deeply respect my right hon. Friend’s intervention and, indeed, his contributions to the debates on this topic. Many aspects of the law relevant to this area are not changed by the Bill, however, and I would like to answer my right hon. Friend’s intervention by saying that, to the extent that there are difficulties, they already exist. I stated clearly last week that key elements of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights stay standing, and I reiterate that today. I do not see this Bill as creating further constitutional crises than could be wrought out of the existing law.
	For the record, before moving on to my second argument about the two amendments, let me state again that the Government are absolutely committed to the Church of England as the established Church, with the sovereign as its Supreme Governor. We consider that the relationship between Church and state in England is an important part of the constitutional framework. It has evolved over centuries and the Government have no intention of legislating to disestablish the Church of England. It is important to state that. The Government’s view is that allowing a person of the Roman Catholic faith to accede to the throne would clearly be incompatible with the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England.
	Let me move on to my second argument and address the substance of the two amendments. I suggest that, if they were made, they would add greater uncertainty to the line of succession. For example, let us consider someone who is brought up as the heir to the throne and is clearly in preparation for that vocation over their lifetime. In the Government’s view, it would make that person’s position, and the position of their immediate family, very difficult, if they could be superseded at any stage by someone who converted from Roman Catholicism to the Protestant faith. By extension, that could also raise the prospect of the reigning monarch being subsequently supplanted by someone who was theoretically higher in the line of succession on that latter person’s converting from Catholicism and joining in communion with the Church of England.
	I see that as a major technical problem with the two amendments. I view it as adding uncertainty and I could envisage it leading, in the words of many who have contributed to the debate, to a “constitutional crisis” which I do not see the core Bill providing for.

Alan Beith: I understand the Minister’s argument, but it does not address the fact that, throughout the discussion, it has been clear that we are talking about children who are going to be brought up in mixed marriages. It is likely that, in those circumstances, before the child is of the age to decide whether they want to succeed to the throne, they will have experienced both Churches and could make a perfectly free choice—unconnected with the throne—for one or the other. That choice would determine their eligibility long before they were 18 or 19.

Chloe Smith: I recognise the measured point that right hon. Friend makes. The difficulty or tension here that we do not have the time or scope to go into with regard to this Bill, or indeed as mere parliamentarians as opposed to theologians, is the nature of free will, and the free will of the child. I want to return us to the point that the Bill does not seek to change the entirety of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights, for reasons that went through at some length last week and a little earlier today,. I put the Government’s point: the Bill is narrow in scope and does not seek to enter into the theology of the faiths in question; it seeks instead to amend a unique form of discrimination that is particularly narrow.

Edward Leigh: I do not understand the Minister’s point—that if the two amendments were passed, it could result in a constitutional crisis or somebody supplanting somebody else. If she does not mind my saying so, this seems like an argument invented by civil servants. It is over-complicating the situation, when the fact remains that under this Bill the eldest daughter or son, whoever comes first, is going to succeed. All my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is doing through the amendments is to prevent them from being disbarred from the throne because of something that might have happened in their childhood. That is what he is saying: it is very clear; it is not very complicated.

Chloe Smith: As I understand the amendments tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, they would technically open the opportunity for a person to convert and provide for that person not to be “for ever” barred. I think it is possible for that to allow confusion over the very same point, including after the moment of succession. I can see that possibility arising through my hon. Friend’s amendments. I regret that that is the case, but I see it as a problem, and I humbly make that argument to the House.

Mark Durkan: The Minister is throwing up a plot line here that even Jeffrey Archer would not try to contrive in suggesting that by converting, someone is somehow going to leapfrog over somebody else in the line of succession. How would that happen?

Chloe Smith: I am trying to describe a situation where an older child—the Bill affects nothing to do with the age of succession—could, due to their faith, initially be out of the line of succession but later change their faith, as envisaged by the amendments, thereby changing the realities of the succession.

Mark Durkan: If the Minister will forgive me for saying it, this is now sounding a little like “There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza”! She is relying on the fact that an older brother or sister might be debarred because of their faith, but the point of the amendments is to end the situation of someone being debarred because they happen to be of a particular faith at any stage in their lives.

Chloe Smith: During this debate many hon. Members have asked the Government to take account of unintended consequences, and I humbly suggest that I am pointing
	out an unintended consequence of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset.
	We have heard several mentions in the debate of the support afforded to the Bill by the Archbishop of Westminster, who welcomed
	“the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to give heirs to the throne the freedom to marry a Catholic”.
	Importantly, he also recognised the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society. I balance that against the Church of England’s comments, which are likewise supportive. Given that both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have been extremely supportive of the changes, I believe that we have found an appropriate balance in the Bill. I do not think there is an appetite in the country at large to change or damage the position of the established Church in this country.

Wayne David: Will the Minister accept the reality of change in this extremely complex constitutional area? Whatever the moral arguments in favour of change, they must nevertheless be matched to the practicalities of constitutional change and achieving the necessary consensus to bring about that change.

Chloe Smith: I welcome the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who brings me back to the point that I do not believe there is a consensus among the public for any radical divergence from the traditional arrangements for the established Church in this country.
	In new clause 1, my hon. Friend proposes a perhaps rather ingenious solution: splitting the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England from the role of sovereign, in a method akin to a regency. Such a split would represent a fundamental change to the role of the monarch in English society in relation to the established Church, and could not be considered without extensive consultation. I am delighted that the House had sufficient time to debate all the matters that were in scope last week, but new clause 1 suggests a more radical diversion from the traditional role of the monarchy. There is not public support for the proposed change, which opens up a series of extremely difficult questions about what the relationship would be between the sovereign and the Supreme Governor, and whether such arrangements could continue to support the established place of the Church of England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) raised a question about how the coronation and accession oaths could be made to work in such an instance.
	The Government have no intention of going further than the limited scope of the Bill as presented. The amendments and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset would introduce instability and uncertainty of a type that is not welcome in the institution we are discussing, which has served the country well for generations in its temporal role and in its spiritual role as articulated. As there is neither public support for the admirably comprehensive arguments that have been made, nor appropriate space for consultation on them considering that the legislation must be taken through many other realms, I invite my hon. Friend to seek leave to withdraw his amendments.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I begin my reply by thanking the Lord President of the Council for saying:
	“The Bill does three specific things.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 208.]
	Three is important, because if the scope is only two things, it is narrow, but three widens it, which has helped me in tabling my amendments. No doubt the Minister will convey my gratitude to the Lord President of the Council.
	I am grateful to those Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who have spoken broadly in support of my position. It is a particular pleasure, however, to have the support of some Opposition Members with whom I am normally in a high state of disagreement: the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I also received support for my amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). As I spoke at considerable length on a private member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, it is noble of him not to have held that against me.
	I will not press my amendments to a vote, with the caveat that the argument put against them was of a high degree of sophistry—I cannot believe that the Minister wrote the words herself, given the sophistical nature that they display. I will, however, test the will of the House on new clause 1, on the succession. I am basically asking Members whether they are in favour of tolerance, equality and religious freedom.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 38, Noes 371.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Succession to the Crown not to depend on gender

Paul Flynn: I beg to move amendment 3,page1,line2, leave out
	‘born after 28 October 2011’
	and insert ‘whenever born’.
	I shall be much briefer than I was when we debated the previous amendments. From where I sit in the House, I noticed the conversations that Members were having as they went in to vote and I think that many who opposed the previous measure will be very surprised to see, when they read the papers tomorrow, what exactly they voted against.
	Amendment 3 is a brief and helpful proposal to remove the specified date. Lord Armstrong has recently reminded us of how atrocious we, sadly, are in this Parliament at legislating. When we legislate in haste we often legislate in error, and what Lord Armstrong has said, having gone through the Bills passed in the 13 years of the previous Government, is that 75 went through
	all stages in this House and the other House, received Royal Assent and then were never implemented—they made no difference.
	We have now reached the position where this Bill may well be judged as an atrocious piece of legislation, because there is no need to limit us to a date. We are dealing with a situation where the child is likely to be born—this is referred to in the Bill—in the summer, but there is no need to make a decision now. We can give ourselves time to improve the Bill and avoid the unintended consequences it contains.
	I cannot see why we should not apply this provision now. If this is such a good idea—there is an almost universal approval in the House for the main proposition of getting rid of discrimination against women—why not do it immediately? Why should it apply in 40 or 60 years’ time? Why should it not apply immediately? The effect of that might be nothing at all, because those in the line of succession in the foreseeable future are predominantly male, barring problems that might occur with premature deaths, accidents and so on. However, it is conceivable, although unlikely, that there could be a female in direct line to the throne. Are we going to wait until the child that is going to be born in July reaches maturity for this beneficial legislation to come into force? If it is worth doing, it is worth doing now.

Chloe Smith: I will be equally as brief as the hon. Gentleman. I, too, understand that the effect of his amendment would be to make the gender of any person in the line of succession irrelevant when determining succession to the throne. I put it to him that the Government did not make an omission; the way we set out the Bill was a deliberate choice. His amendment would change the current line of succession. Specifically—I suspect he has this in mind—their Royal Highnesses Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, and their descendants, would move below Her Royal Highness Princess Anne and her descendants. The Government do not believe it is fair or reasonable to alter the legitimate expectations of those currently in line to the throne. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a retrospective provision and there would need to be good reason for it.
	Commonwealth leaders have agreed to remove the male bias in succession to the Crown for the future. For reasons we have already discussed at length, the Government view that agreement as being important to maintain, and it does not envisage the current order of succession being disturbed. Rather, when new members of the royal family are born they will enter the line of succession without there being any preference for males over females, and I know that the hon. Gentleman shares that latter principle with me.

Michael Ellis: Does the Minister agree that not only would it be intrinsically unfair to adopt an ex post facto aspect to the Bill by applying it retrospectively to those who have lived in the current order of succession for many years—their adult lives—but it would breach the principle of avoiding retrospective legislation in this House?

Chloe Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I note that the different clauses of this Bill do carry slightly different connotations of retrospectivity. I would be happy to explain that, but we did cover some of those issues in detail in Committee. He is right to say
	that what is relevant in clause 1 is the legitimate expectations of those currently close to the throne in the line of succession. We do face a question about what is fair and reasonable to them. Clause 1 strikes a fair balance by providing that gender is irrelevant in this regard for persons born after the date of the agreement reached by the Commonwealth realms on 28 October 2011. That element of retrospection is justifiable.
	An important practical element and effect of the measure is that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter and then a son, the daughter would precede the son in the line of succession. I believe that all hon. Members know that that is an example of the point behind clause 1. It is also clear that that deals with a future occurrence, as opposed to altering the legitimate expectations of those currently in line to the throne. For that reason, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Paul Flynn: I am disappointed at the limit to the reforming zeal of this Government, who seem to be saying, “God, make me gender neutral—but not yet.” I know that the Minister was disappointed that I did not move my amendment in middle English, but in the spirit of what she said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Third Reading

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I want to thank the House for the gripping debate that took place last Tuesday and for the scrutiny that has been provided. I was very glad to see that Members had sufficient time in Committee to consider all the amendments that were selected. I particularly want to thank various participants, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who brought such a deep understanding of our complex and colourful constitutional settlement to the Floor of the House. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who cruelly described my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset as the Member for the middle ages but then went on to refer to the Roman era—so presumably he is the Member representing the Roman occupation in today’s debate.
	I also wish to thank the royal household for its engagement and should mention the tireless work of Governments from across the Commonwealth, ably marshalled by Rebecca Kitteridge the New Zealand Cabinet Secretary. It has been a remarkable achievement to ensure that the changes we are discussing can be effected across the realms of the Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is Head of State.
	I should like to make a point of clarification on an issue discussed in Committee. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) asked whether, under the Statute of Westminster 1931, individual Parliaments in the respective states of the Commonwealth need to give their assent. The relevant part of the Statute of Westminster is the preamble, which includes the following:
	“And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth
	of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”.
	To put it another way, our opinion is that the Statute of Westminster 1931 is politically rather than legally binding. A statement in a preamble is different from a section in an Act. Bearing that in mind, the Government have consulted the 15 other Commonwealth realms in order to reach agreement as to how the laws on succession to the throne should be changed. We have secured confirmation from Heads of Government and Cabinet Secretaries that each realm is in a position to take the steps necessary to bring the changes into effect. We consider that the appropriate steps are a matter for each respective realm in their particular context. Although some realms will not find it necessary to involve their Parliaments, others will.
	The Bill is about equality. The Prime Ministers of the 16 Commonwealth nations of which Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State agreed during their meeting in Perth in 2011 to work together towards a common approach to amending the rules of succession to their respective Crowns. All those countries wish to see change in two areas: first, to end the system of male-preference primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession; and, secondly, to remove the bar on the heir to the throne marrying a Catholic. One effect of the proposed change is that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter and then a son, the daughter would precede the son in the line of succession. I am proud that the Bill will remove two long-standing pieces of discrimination and modernise and affirm the place of our constitutional monarchy.

Ben Wallace: On that issue—my right hon. Friend uses the example of a daughter and a younger son—has he managed to provide clarification on the points raised last week on what would happen to titles such as the Duke of Rothesay that specify a male heir in their deeds or patents provident?

Tom Brake: That matter has been brought up at various stages of the Bill. Titles are a matter for the monarch. Because we are restricting the scope of the Bill, we can move forward.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way but I believe he might not understand me. The monarch is the fount of honour and can create a title, but most titles are not the privilege of the monarch once they are created—most titles are in fact a matter for Parliament. It takes an Act of Parliament to change or abolish a title except those deemed, under the doctrine of merger, to resort back to the Crown. In that case, will he tell us what will happen to those titles not under the doctrine of merger?

Tom Brake: On the titles to which my hon. Friend refers, the following might be helpful. The Scottish titles currently held by the Prince of Wales—Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles and Baron of Renfrew—can
	pass automatically to a female heir apparent. Those titles have always hung together. The removal of the male bias in the line of succession could therefore not result in the detachment of the titles from the Crown. We have consulted the Court of the Lord Lyon, the official heraldry office for Scotland, on that. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.
	As we look forward to the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child, we can also celebrate the fact that a baby boy or girl will have an equal claim to the throne.

Wayne David: We have had a good debate today, and there were excellent debates last week on Second Reading and in Committee. I am glad the Government made the right decision to allow sufficient time for a proper and full debate in the House.
	As I have said before, although the Bill is small in size, it is constitutionally and practically significant. A number of hon. Members have made the point that we should not tamper with our constitution, and particularly the monarch’s role within it, unless we are very sure about the changes we are making. Moreover, it is important that there is a large measure of consensus that transcends usual political divisions. In that respect, I thank the Minister for the co-operation with Opposition Front Benchers. I, too, associate myself with his remarks on wishing the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge all the best for the birth of their first child. For the first time, we can be sure that we have established equality between the sexes.
	Mixed marriage—so-called—was raised on a number of occasions during our debates. I accept that it is a theological discussion, but clear reassurances have been provided by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.
	We discussed the resources of the Duchy of Cornwall last week. I am assured that money will go to the Treasury, and that, under the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, exactly the same money that would normally go to a male heir apparent will go to a female heir apparent via the Treasury. There is also the possibility that a female heir apparent could be the chair of the duchy, which is to be welcomed.
	A number of hon. Members have been exercised because some people allege that there is a contradiction in clause 2(1) and clause 3(1). It is important to recognise that there is no contradiction—the clauses sit well together. The Government of the day will have a clear role and express a clear opinion to the monarch if the monarch’s right to deny the royal succession as it would normally take place is exercised. It is important to explain that the monarch is not a detached institution—we have a constitutional monarchy. That important point needs to be stressed time and again, but these are complicated and emotive issues. Will the Government consider providing additional explanation in the explanatory notes when the Bill goes to the other place, so that they provide further clarity?
	That leads me on to the decision of the monarch regarding the six in line to succession. On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister specifically stated
	that the figure of six was seized on for pragmatic reasons, but the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), has said that the succession after Queen Victoria—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was extremely helpful on this point—set a useful precedent. Six is a reasonable figure that the Opposition can easily accept.
	In conclusion, I am content with the reassurances that Ministers have provided and I look forward, once we have concluded our deliberations, to hearing the views that will be coherently expressed in the other place. The Bill is indeed an important piece of legislation. The roots of the monarchy as an institution are firmly embedded in our history—there is no doubt about that—but today the constitutional monarchy is a form of government that places the Head of State beyond political competition. That is surely to be welcomed. The sovereign, as well as being Head of State, is head of our nation. As one of our most distinguished constitutional experts has argued, the monarchy alone is in a position to interpret the nation to itself—that is its central function, its essential justification and its rationale. The Bill will help our constitutional monarchy fulfil that role even more effectively today and well into the future.

Nicholas Soames: I wish to speak very briefly. First, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), for her courtesy and kindness in dealing with the queries that have rained down on her in the course of the debates. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who has brought to this debate an inquiring mind, which is necessary when dealing with such matters, and a profound knowledge of history and tradition and everything that goes with them. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), whose contributions are always worth listening to and whom I salute across the House even though I profoundly disagree with him. I always think it must be pretty hard going to be a republican at the time of the diamond jubilee, but he has stuck to his guns nevertheless, as he always does, and it is a pleasure to speak in the same debate as him.
	I want only to say that I regret that a Bill that was pretty miserable in the first place has not been improved by its passage through this House, introduced, as it was, by the Deputy Prime Minister as a messy amalgam of political correctness and a desire to interfere. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, these are extremely complicated, complex and difficult matters that have served this country very well down the generations. Our old friend the unintended consequence rears its ugly head, I am afraid, very substantially during this debate so we look to their lordships to deal with those matters.
	I fear that the word “consultation” has been grossly overused. I would be interested to know the full extent of the detailed consultation that went on in the preparation of this Bill. I believe that consultation with the institutions concerned has been very minimal indeed and it is therefore in my view disrespectful to the institution of the Crown.
	The Government are playing fast and loose with the hereditary principle and I look to their lordships to deal robustly with this matter in the other place.

Keith Vaz: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and I want to start my speech on a note of agreement, as he is absolutely right that the contributions made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) added to the debate. It has been very worth while and will be followed, although at times it got complicated. I thought I knew everything about the Catholic Church and a bit about the history of this country, but I have learned so much from so many colleagues and I appreciate what they have said.
	I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), for the way in which they conducted the discussions preceding and following the introduction of the Bill in this House. In particular, the hon. Lady went out of her way to ask Members for their views. In all the years I have been in this House, I have not often been invited to meetings with Ministers to discuss my views on impending legislation. That took place in a formal meeting at which many right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House were present. We had a fruitful discussion and she certainly seemed to have listened to the points that were made, as demonstrated by her speeches.
	The difficult task was that of the Deputy Prime Minister. He has had to go to other members of the Commonwealth and persuade them to agree. He has done that diligently—I do not think that people automatically agree when he rings up and says that he wants to alter the law of the land. Of course, there has been careful thought. I know that, because when I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill on 18 January 2011, two years ago, I wrote to all 16 Commonwealth Heads of Government. Obviously, I do not know the royal family and Heads of State as well as the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) does, but I do my little bit in royal circles. The response I received was quite depressing, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, went so far as to issue a statement saying he did not think that this issue was a priority—the Canadian people were facing other issues—and that he was not absolutely supportive of the proposal. He has changed his mind, and I am sure that that was because of the Government’s persuasion.
	In conclusion, I want to pay tribute to Terry and Janet Herbert, two constituents of mine who live in Northfields and came to my surgery to say that it was quite wrong for us not to have equality in our succession laws. They pointed out that at least six European countries have changed their succession laws to ensure equality, as we have heard in our numerous discussions on this matter. We have heard them all: the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and others. If it was good enough for them, my constituents asked, why were we not doing the same? They started a petition that was circulated around Leicester and put on websites, which many thousands of people have signed since. I pay tribute to Terry and Janet. I know that they are not solely responsible for this massive change in the law, but I am grateful to them for coming to me and making suggestions. They are great royalists and supporters of
	the monarchy and they love the Queen, as we all do—we all like her as a person even though we do not all support the monarchy.
	We have now brought the monarchy into the 21st century and we can all be very proud of that.

Michael Ellis: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I am a member of that Committee and I venture to suggest that there is no more important person to the home affairs of this country than our sovereign lady the Queen.
	The unwritten constitution of this great country is rather like the roof over the temple of Solomon, and the monarchy is the central pillar holding up that roof. Other pillars include this House, the other place, the judiciary and the law courts. Perhaps even the press are a pillar of the constitution—although rather a stunted pillar so perhaps more of a balustrade. Nevertheless, one might argue that a number of pillars hold up the roof of our constitution. It is a multi-pillared structure—one might almost say a Parthenon—and one must be cautious before one chips away at those pillars. The consequence of such actions can be a structural collapse, and we all know that those who are beneath the structure chipping away at it can be the victims of such a calamity. I would exercise all due diligence and all due caution before instituting any changes, such as those that are envisaged.
	However, I support the Bill. On balance, 300 years is about the right period of time—it is not overly hurried—for the provisions being changed by the Bill to be looked at afresh. Some aspects of the Bill are appropriate because they renew the ageing—one might even say decrepit—parts of the constitution and the ancient structure that I mentioned. It is always right to consider that this country of ours and the monarchy that heads it has always changed with the times. The monarchy has always tended to adapt to changing times. Recently, Queen Victoria, by her character and temperament—[Interruption.] Recently, in constitutional terms. When Queen Victoria came to the throne she represented a considerable change from the Georgian sovereigns who went before her. Her conduct, her decorum and the manner in which she reigned were lessons to her descendants.
	There is no doubt that there is unacceptable prejudice currently written into the constitution of this country by such Acts of Parliament as the Act of Settlement 1701.

Keith Vaz: I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far, but does he agree with me and other Members of the House that there is unfinished business in respect of modernisation—for example, the succession to baronetcies? These are issues that we should return to in the future.

Michael Ellis: For my part, I prefer to leave the structures alone if we can possibly do so. I think there is something to be said for the ancient customs, traditions and privileges of this country, and we should be very cautious about making changes willy-nilly because of their unintended consequences.
	We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He said, I believe, in a debate last Tuesday from which I was absent but which I have read in the Official Report, that
	he does not take offence at the terms of the Act of Settlement because it is the history of this country. I admire that and I wish more people would take such a mature view of such things. All too often people are quick to find offence where none should be taken. There is an inbuilt prejudice against other religions, my own included. Because those religions may not be in communion with the Church of England, their adherents cannot be eligible to be sovereign of this country, but I for one take no offence at that because it is part of the noble history of this country and it seems to me that there are reasons why we should retain that. Principal among them is the establishment of the Church of England.
	The prejudices that exist are based not on current thinking but on historical reasons, and have been left unchanged only because Members of this House in recent generations have taken the view, presumably, that they have more important things to do than change them or because changing them involves great complexity. For that reason, as well as for many others, I admire my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for being the one who brought these measures before the House. Whereas others have spoken of them and made supportive noises about them for many years, the Deputy Prime Minister has done it, and I congratulate him on that.
	With reference to male primogeniture, one has only to look at the long and noble history of this country to see that we have been very fortunate with our female sovereigns. There should certainly be no reason why we should deny or make it more difficult for females to succeed to the Crown. We have the example of our current Queen and of Queen Victoria, and I dare say of those queens who were not queens regnant but queens consort. I am thinking of the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her late Majesty Queen Mary, who also were exemplars of duty, service to their country, and spirit. I have no problem with removing the male primogeniture aspect, as the Bill does.
	However, I would not go as far as others and seek to defenestrate completely those parts of the constitution which in some way can be said to be prejudicial to some group or other. For example, one could argue that the law that says that the oldest person, whether male or female, should take precedence over young siblings is also biased. It is also prejudicial because it is ageist in that it favours older over younger. One could go on ad absurdum. I suggest that we try not to get too concerned about removing all aspects of the legal fictions that the law has had to develop over the years.
	For example, when, for the purpose of inheritance, both the father and the eldest son die in the same instance, such as in a road traffic accident, the law assumes that the older died before the younger, even if it is transparent that they both died instantly in an accident. That is because the law has to develop types of legal regulation—legal fiction, one might call it—in order to make sense. I use this as an example to indicate with caution that attractive though it is in principle to remove all types of bias, there will always be some type of bias within the system, but the Bill goes some way towards rectifying the most egregious examples.
	The Bill also deals with the Royal Marriages Act 1772. The Act has become redundant in as much as it is difficult to operate effectively.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman says the Act is redundant. Would it not be more accurate to say that it is a ridiculous piece of legislation?

Michael Ellis: I do not go so far as to say it is a ridiculous piece of legislation because there is a good reason why the sovereign should have a right over those closest to him or her in their marriage arrangements. The hon. Gentleman must also agree with that principle, because he said he agreed with the principle that the number should be reduced to six. So whether it be the heirs of Electress Sophia or whether it be six people, the principle remains the same. The sovereign has special rights and responsibilities. Of course it is true that in ordinary families no head of the family would have such a say, but it is nonsense to suggest that the royal family should be in that position. It is right that some demarcation be made so that the sovereign can exercise control. My understanding is that in other constitutional monarchies similar provisions apply, whereby restrictions are placed on the marriage rights of those closest in line.
	I support the Bill. I commend it to the House. Although I emphasise that I would exercise extreme caution when chipping away at the pillars of our constitution, in my submission the Bill should have the support of the House.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). When he talked about the temple of Solomon, I was somewhat concerned about the number of pillars he was adding to the established archaeology of the building. The fact that it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar many centuries ago also made me worry about quite what direction the hon. Gentleman was going in, let alone whether we were going to start talking about how many wives and concubines Solomon had under the provisions of his own royal marriages Act.
	I support the two main thrusts of what the Bill is trying to do, but I think that we will end up ruing its passage. That is not because I disagree with the principle of abolishing male-preference primogeniture so that women can inherit equally with men, nor because of the minor adjustment to the provision on those who marry Roman Catholics being allowed to continue in the succession. My problem with the Bill is that it does something very significant that I do not think the Government intend it to do. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 provided that an individual who was in line to the throne had to get consent from the monarch at the time of marriage. If the monarch refused to provide that consent, or the individual refused to ask for it, their marriage would simply become null and void. I do not think that any of us believes that anybody should be able to declare anybody else’s marriage null and void.
	The new legislation that we are seeking to agree will have no effect on the validity of the marriage, but it means that the person will be removed from the succession. That matters because throughout the whole history of English Parliaments, Scottish Parliaments and Irish Parliaments, the succession has always been determined by Parliament, not the monarch. Parliament decided what should happen at the deposition of Edward II. In the case of Richard II, the decision was made by the
	shortest Parliament in our history—a one-day Parliament in Westminster Hall gathered by Henry Bolingbroke. One could argue that it was not a proper Parliament because Richard II was not present, but none the less the Commons, the Lords and the Church, gathered together, made the decision on who should be the new monarch.

Michael Ellis: May I suggest that Parliament will still make the decision, because it could intercede and put someone back in the line of succession if they had been excluded for this reason?

Chris Bryant: That is not in the Bill. Indeed, the Government have said that it is entirely a matter for the Crown, in the double sense of the monarch and the monarch’s Ministers, who might have a role in advising the monarch.
	Incidentally, I would not want to be a monarch apart from Elizabeth with a “II” in my title, but when James II was removed, Parliament decided, through the Bill of Rights and then the Act of Settlement, to hand over a joint monarchy to William and Mary rather than to anybody else. Then, when the Stuart line was going to end with Queen Anne, Parliament decided how the succession should proceed. Again, when Edward VIII tried to abdicate in 1936, the abdication could be allowed only because there was a statute of Parliament the next day.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: This is waistcoat-to-waistcoat business, isn’t it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman missed out the succession of Mary Tudor, when the Act of Parliament —the Third Succession Act of Henry VIII—was followed rather than the instructions issued by Edward VI.

Chris Bryant: That is absolutely right. It is interesting that we had gone through three Succession Acts, but again Parliament decided the process. Incidentally, exactly the same situation applied in Scotland. The calling of the first Scottish Parliament was prompted by a contested succession in Scotland on who the next monarch should be.
	For the first time in our history, the monarch himself or herself will be allowed to decide whether somebody is barred from the succession by refusing to provide consent, without any reason given, at the moment that that person chooses to marry. We do not have a capricious monarch at the moment, but we have had plenty of capricious monarchs in the past, and I suspect that we will have a capricious monarch in future. At that point, we will rue the day that we passed the legislation in this form. I desperately hope that a good Bill is made better by their lordships. This is the kind of moment when one wants to vote both Aye and No, because it is a good Bill in principle but a bad Bill in its detail.

Ben Wallace: I had no intention of contributing to this thin Bill’s passage through the House of Commons. In fact, it was only last week, one lunchtime, that I looked at it and decided to do so because I could see a
	problem with it. Of course, it was also because I wanted to help my coalition partner, the Deputy Prime Minister, and to give him the same easy time that he gives us, by making sure that the Government were given some helpful hints on the Bill during its passage. I agree with the principle of what we are trying to achieve and totally support the Government’s policy on this. However, experience from my previous life, and, I suppose, from my current life—I should declare that I am a member of the Queen’s Bodyguard for Scotland—means that I recognise that there are many foibles in modern and historical changes to the constitution. Making changes is easier said than done.
	Wanting to be helpful in last week’s debate, I raised some concerns about the other titles and assets that accompany the sovereign. It is easy to talk about changing the succession without realising that our monarchs are more than that—they have other titles, such as the Duke of Rothesay, the Earl of Carrick, the Duke of Lancaster and the Duke of Cornwall. Some are merely titles without asset, while some are titles with asset, but they are all very important. They are regulated by more people than just one Government lawyer. I am surprised by the lack of consultation with key people such as the Lord Lyon King of Arms in Scotland and the Garter Principal King of Arms in England. These people monitor and, in effect, register letters patent to make sure that the power and extent of a title is upheld. This is not as easy as saying that we can change the succession and everything else will fall into line. I am therefore hoping for clarification from the Government.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) gave the example of one or two Scottish titles that can follow through the female line. That is absolutely correct, as in the case of titles such as the Countess of Mar—one of the oldest titles in Britain. However, my right hon. Friend missed out the fact that that takes place only when there is no male heir as a sibling; when there is, they will get the title under the rule of primogeniture. We have heard the example of what would happen if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge had a son and an older daughter, and I assume that the son would be likely to continue to inherit the other titles.
	The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are titles that come with asset, and they have a very significant impact. I understand the Government’s line, and I accept that it is likely—almost certain—that the monarch will continue to enjoy the incomes from those assets, but not necessarily the assets themselves and control over them. A situation could arise whereby the Duchy of Lancaster’s assets, which are considerable— the latest valuation is over £400 million—reside with the son, but the income is diverted to the monarch. That is fine the first time round, but the second time round, when the son of the son has the asset, the asset will get further away from the title, as will the control that may go with it, and the process will continue.
	We need to know that the Government—I urge the other House to make sure that this is the case—have consulted the deeds patent under which these titles are issued, and the duchy chronicles and charters of the 15th and 16th centuries that set out what conditions are attached to the Crown. If we do not get this right, it could come back to haunt us at a later date. I urge the Government to make sure that clarity is provided to the other place by the time the Bill arrives there.

Chloe Smith: With brevity and the leave of the House, I simply want to confirm that I would be happy to expand the explanatory notes as the Bill goes to the other place. I also want to suggest that everyone in the House—

Wayne David: Will the Minister give way?

Chloe Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman not allow me the pleasure of simply saying, “God save the Queen”?

Wayne David: I have no objection at all—the Minister can say it again if she likes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned how the six people nearest in line to the throne could lose their place if the Queen did not consent to their marriage. It is important to say on the record that the explanatory notes state clearly that that would be the case; in fact, it says so in the summary on the front page. I do not think, therefore, that it is fair to say that the issue has not been referred to properly in the House—it has been referred to in the documents and in last week’s debate.
	It is also important to remember that we are talking about a constitutional monarchy that has a close relationship with the Government of the day. I am sure that a monarch would not take any action if they believed that, in doing so, they would be acting incorrectly in the background.

Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you for that short intervention.

Chloe Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and commend the Bill to the other place.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)).

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 15 October 2012, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 267, Noes 165.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Water Supply and Water Quality Fees) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 22 October 2012, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 18),

Regulatory Reform

That the draft Legislative Reform (Hallmarking) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 26 November 2012, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.

Committees

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 and 6 together.
	Ordered,

Communities and Local Government

That Stephen Gilbert be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and John Pugh be added.

Scottish Affairs

That Fiona Bruce and Iain McKenzie be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mrs Eleanor Laing and Graeme Morrice be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

BASKETBALL (FUNDING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

Stephen Mosley: I am delighted to open this evening’s Adjournment debate on the funding of basketball in the UK. I will begin by declaring my interest as the chairman of the British Basketball League Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that co-ordinates and delivers national community basketball programmes.
	The catalyst for my requesting this debate was the recent decision by UK Sport to cut the funding of basketball for the Rio 2016 Olympic games to zero. I also want to demonstrate how basketball is hugely underfunded in the UK.
	In terms of grass-roots participation, basketball is incredibly popular. In the most recent Active People survey conducted by Sport England, it was estimated that just short of 153,000 people in the UK play basketball at least once a week. Basketball is the fifth most played team sport in the country and the second most played sport among 11 to 15-year-olds. In the key target area of 16 to 25-year-olds, where participation rates in all sports drop off at their fastest, basketball holds on to the highest levels of interest of all team sports.
	Equally important is the demographic make-up of the sport’s participants. More than 40% of the 153,000 weekly players are from black and minority ethnic groups.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend recognise that basketball is played principally in conurbations, which is incredibly important because we need to get young people to play sport?

Stephen Mosley: My hon. Friend is correct that basketball is played mainly in urban areas. In fact, among the lowest socio-economic groups in the country, basketball is the most popular sport.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend also recognise that the Plymouth Raiders, who are based in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency, are one of the principal basketball teams in the country?

Stephen Mosley: The Plymouth Raiders are an excellent basketball team. Looking around the Chamber, I can see representatives from Leicester, Newcastle and, of course, from Cheshire, so basketball is well represented here this evening.
	Participation levels in basketball are very good, but we should be doing all that we can to ensure that they are exceptional.

Jonathan Ashworth: The hon. Gentleman talked about basketball’s popularity in the black and minority ethnic community and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) mentioned urban areas. As one would expect, therefore, basketball is incredibly popular in Leicester, which has the excellent Leicester Riders. They have told me in recent days that the decision to cut the funding is absolutely wrong. I hope that the Minister listens to the representations this evening and announces a U-turn.

Stephen Mosley: When the Minister replies shortly, I know that everyone in the Chamber will be looking at him with expectant eyes, hoping that he will help.
	One would assume that with so many people playing basketball and given the demographic make-up of the sport’s participants, Sport England would be backing basketball with all its might. However, that assumption is misplaced. In the past month or so, when confronted about the decision to cut funding for the Olympics team to zero, the Minister has been keen to stress that England Basketball has received a substantial sum from Sport England to support the grass-roots game and talent development.
	For the coming four years, Sport England has allocated £6.8 million to community programmes and the development of talent through the youth ranks. That sounds like a lot of money. However, the best way to understand the figure is to break it down into per person funding. Based on Sport England’s statistics, there is just £12 a year for each person who plays basketball once a week.
	Although it is not my intention to pit sport against sport, the only fair way of judging that figure is to compare it with Sport England’s funding of other sports. Hockey, for example, has 109,000 weekly participants, yet the sport will receive £12 million over the same four years, or, using the same formula, £28 a year per player—more than twice the amount allocated to basketball. Netball has 159,000 weekly participants and it will receive £25 million, or £39 a year per player, which is more than three times the amount allocated to basketball. Finally, rugby league has 51,000 weekly participants and £17.5 million funding. That is £86 a year per player—seven times the amount allocated to basketball.
	Given that basketball is the most popular team sport among BME and lower socio-economic groups, and that it carries the most interest among Sport England’s key 16 to 25-year-old market, it seems incredible that such a relatively small amount of funding is available from Sport England.

Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling argument about funding. Does he agree that not only do 16 to 25-year-olds—and beyond—benefit from investment in this sport, but children do as well, through the hoops for health programme? That is having a massive impact on school children and getting them interested in basketball from a young age, as well as teaching them about healthy lifestyles, not smoking and the other health benefits of sport.

Stephen Mosley: The hon. Lady is totally correct. As basketball is so easy to play, it can be played anywhere on any bit of tarmac. It is very popular among young kids and is, I think, the second most played sport among 11 to 15-year-olds. It is easy to do, kids want to do it, and basketball teams across the country have a good reputation for going out, encouraging people to get involved, and targeting those who might not necessarily get involved in sports other than basketball.
	However, if the game is to prosper in future, as it has the potential to do, a fairer funding settlement must be agreed, and I urge the Minister to meet representatives of Sport England to discuss the inherent inequality of
	their decision. I would also be grateful for his thoughts on whether £12 a year per player is indeed a fair settlement for basketball.
	Although funding at grass-roots level is integral to any sport’s long-term success, the structure and funding of the elite game is of equal importance. In December, UK Sport announced its funding allocation for the Rio 2016 Olympic games. After receiving £8.6 million for London 2012, the GB team has not been allocated a single penny for Rio. After making incredible progress over the previous funding cycle, the rug has been pulled from under the British basketball team. Unless that decision is reversed, elite British basketball will once again have to start from scratch.

Chi Onwurah: The hon. Gentleman is making very good points. When I visit primary schools in my Newcastle constituency, the hoops for health programme mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is often spoken about with great praise, admiration and enthusiasm. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that being able to see top-class players such as those who play for the Newcastle super Eagles is important? It is even more important to see such players at the Olympics, as that would help inspire young people in my constituency and across the country.

Stephen Mosley: The hon. Lady is right. Over the past two or three years some world-class players have come forward—probably the best basketball player in the world at the moment is a Brit, and I will come to him later.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend recognise that one great thing that took place last year was cage cricket? Sir Ian Botham came along and showed us how we could do that sport. We should be doing exactly that sort of thing—by taking small cages we could end up playing these games in places such as inner cities.

Stephen Mosley: Again, my hon. Friend is correct. At the moment, there are schemes in which temporary basketball pitches are put up in town centres so that the game can be played in the middle of the town. I understand—I am looking at the chair of the all-party group on basketball, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—that in summer people will be able to go to Trafalgar square and do some hoops—[Interruption.] Yes, shoot the hoops. The basketball game is very conscious of that, and it is a good way of getting young people involved and enthused by the sport. Our problem is that UK Sport funding is based on what it considers to be each team’s realistic chances of gaining a medal or a top eight finish in Rio or the 2020 games.

John Leech: The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Is not the real challenge that the formula for deciding funding has been an overwhelming success, and changing it might end up jeopardising some of our success in other sports?

Stephen Mosley: My hon. Friend has a point. I can be fairly relaxed about taking interventions because I think I can stand here until 10 pm tonight, although I reassure
	the Minister that I will not take quite that long. I have reservations about the funding process, on which I know the Minister has recently commented. A couple of weeks ago in
	The Sunday Times 
	he expressed doubts about how the current funding process works; going for medal positions and the top eight in the Olympics may not be the right way forward. I do not argue that the whole process should be scrapped and restarted for all sports, but I do argue that with the right funding, the Great Britain basketball team has every chance of a top eight finish at Rio, and even greater potential for success in 2020.

John Leech: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Does he agree that there may be scope for looking at team sports, as opposed to individual sports, slightly differently? Individual sports currently get an awful lot of the funding.

Stephen Mosley: The competitive situation of team games at the Olympics tends to be more difficult in terms of the number of people who play. Every country in the world plays basketball, but some of the more successful sports in the UK have a more limited pool of participants. Perhaps there are arguments for looking at team sports slightly differently from individual sports. My point, however, is that Great Britain basketball has a fantastic opportunity in 2016 and 2020. Will the Minister explain how UK Sport has assessed the Great Britain team’s potential for success in Rio and beyond? Who was consulted during that assessment, and what reasons were behind the conclusion?

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend recognise that Plymouth college—which, I discovered the other day, would be 49th as a country in numbers of gold and Olympic medals—is willing to offer some of the state schools just outside or in my constituency the opportunity to use some of their people, including their basketball people? Should we not be encouraging private schools to go off and help state schools in that way?

Stephen Mosley: My hon. Friend is correct. Basketball is a game that includes everybody and more people should get involved. Given what he says, it sounds as if Plymouth college is doing a fantastic job to get people into the game and playing sport, which I am sure is what we in this Chamber all want.
	My argument about UK Sport and its decision to remove funding from basketball is that the facts do not add up. Since UK Sport funding for basketball was initiated, both the men’s and women’s teams have gone from the bottom rung of the international ladder to being some of the most respected teams in Europe. At London 2012, the men were one basket away from achieving their UK Sport quarter final target, and they recorded an historic 32-point win against China, which was ranked 10th in the world. They lost by just one point to eventual silver medallists, Spain, and they almost beat Brazil, which finished fifth overall at the Olympics. These results were unthinkable just four years ago, and demonstrate not only the huge progress that has been made, but the potential for basketball in the future.
	In addition to their collective achievements, the number of individual star talents in the GB team is growing all the time. Chicago Bulls superstar Luol Deng is one of the greatest sports stars in the world and one of the hugely successful British players currently plying their trade in the greatest league in the world, the NBA. He has written to the Prime Minister to protest against UK Sport’s decision, and I hope that the Minister has seen his letter. What message are we sending to young British basketball players who aspire to similar greatness if we do not fund our national team?

Bob Russell: My hon. Friend is coming to the crux of the matter. If we are to encourage young people, in whichever sport, we need a broad-based pyramid to get the elite players at the top. Without that pyramid, boys and girls will not participate.

Stephen Mosley: My hon. Friend is correct. I am not talking only about the men’s team, but about the women’s team and the youth team.
	The women’s team was the youngest team at the Olympics. It almost beat the silver medallists France, and was narrowly defeated by fourth-placed Russia. That is stunning progress from a team which came together only a few years ago. I also want to quickly mention the British youth men’s team, who just last week won bronze at the Australian youth Olympic festival, demonstrating the strength that we have coming down the pipeline.
	For UK Sport to categorically state that neither adult team has any hope of medals is hugely disappointing. It ignores the enormous progress that has been made over the previous one and a half funding cycles, and it consigns British Olympic basketball to the scrapheap for the foreseeable future. How is the British national team expected to progress further and to bid for future funding if UK Sport is removing any chance of success in the short and medium term?
	Furthermore, the Minister’s recent assertion that the Great Britain basketball teams are unlikely to qualify for either Rio or the 2020 games also looks to be wrong. For example, the men’s team has qualified for the 2013 European championships, and because it has risen significantly in the world rankings over the past 12 months it has avoided a number of the higher ranked teams in the group stage draw. It now has every chance of qualifying through to the next round. As a result, Rio qualification is a real possibility, and choosing to write the team off at this stage would be a gross miscarriage of justice.
	I also understand that the Minister has expressed some concerns about the administration of the game and the ability of the governing body to deliver. To my knowledge, and to the knowledge of British Performance Basketball, there has never been any past criticism of its performance, structures or business model. I am sure that the Minister will understand the concern felt by British Performance Basketball, so before it makes any official appeal to UK Sport, it would be grateful to know if those comments were in fact directed at it, and if so, what it has done wrong and what it needs to do to improve. I would be very grateful if the Minister could cast some clarity on this very important matter.
	I know that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West would like to make a brief contribution to this debate, and I hope that I have left her sufficient
	time to do so. An hour and 40 minutes should be enough —
	[
	Laughter.
	]
	I would like to stress that, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate, the breadth of these arguments means that they warrant far more attention than the time afforded to them in an Adjournment debate. I hope that he will consent to meet representatives of British basketball as soon as possible, so that they can gain some clarity on what exactly they need to do in the future. There are a lot of unanswered questions and a great deal of confusion surrounding these decisions. The whole of the British basketball community would be very, very grateful for the Minister’s support in the crucial weeks ahead.

Sharon Hodgson: I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley)—I want to call him my hon. Friend—on securing this important debate. We work together closely on the topic of basketball. I am the chair of the all-party group on basketball, and he is my excellent vice-chair. I am also a trustee on the board of the British Basketball League Foundation, which he chairs. I thank other hon. Members from both sides of the House who are members of that fantastic all-party group for showing their commitment to the cause and being here in force tonight.
	I endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said and will not seek to repeat the many excellent points he made, even though we have the time available. Needless to say, I too am deeply disappointed by the decisions, both new and historic, that have led to this debate. Basketball is important, both in my constituency and across the country, because it reaches a demographic that few sports can. It is dynamic and accessible, and its natural ties to urban culture give it a street credibility others sorely lack. It is no wonder that it is as popular as the hon. Gentleman described. Basketball was consistently one of the most viewed events at the Olympics and Paralympics; 7,500 fans turned out to see the Newcastle Eagles, my local team, play in the BBL cup final earlier this month; and just the other week, 17,000 people packed out the O2 arena to watch an NBA game, which by all accounts was fantastic.

Catherine McKinnell: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing the debate. I had not realised that we had a little extra time, so I tried to be as quick as possible with my previous intervention—

Lindsay Hoyle: I hope the hon. Lady will be quick again.

Catherine McKinnell: I will try, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I have attended a few of the Newcastle Eagles’ games, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) will share my enthusiasm for the amazing family-friendly atmosphere at them. Everybody should experience it as it is quite something.

Sharon Hodgson: That is an excellent point, and I am sure that other hon. Members who are here to support basketball will agree with my hon. Friend. I was at one of the matches that she attended with her young children,
	and they were running around and thoroughly enjoying the game in a very safe environment. Anyone going to basketball for the first time falls in love with it, because it is so exciting and fast. I know that my appearance now does not give the impression of an elite basketball player, but in my youth I played at school with some enthusiasm and have loved it ever since. It is very exciting to play and to watch.

Chi Onwurah: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing the debate. I wish to add my voice to that of my hon. Friends. I have also attended the matches of the Newcastle super Eagles and I have been to St James’s Park to watch Newcastle United play. The family atmosphere at the basketball matches is striking and visitors of all ages are welcomed and supported. This is made possible in part because of the elite players, and they need to be supported to the Rio Olympics and beyond.

Sharon Hodgson: As we have heard, basketball is an inclusive and accessible sport that is often found at the heart of some of the best community projects. The hoops for health programme run by the Newcastle Eagles in my constituency and across the north-east, with professional players encouraging young people to get active, has no funding from Sport England. Sport England does not target that age group, despite the recent observation from Baroness Campbell, the chair of UK Sport, that 20% of pupils aged five are overweight. The statistics get worse as those children get older.

Hugh Robertson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, and clearly I will be winding up the debate. Just to be clear, Sport England is not allowed to intervene that far down the process. It is tied by the lottery additionality rules, so there is no way it can invest: it would be against the law and it would break all the lottery rules.

Sharon Hodgson: I thank the Minister for that clarification. Basketball is not an established sport, so it is fair to say, as the hon. Member for City of Chester described, that it tends to be at the back of the line when funding gets divvied up. In terms of the elite level, the House has also heard about the massive strides made by Great Britain’s men and women basketball teams within just one Olympic cycle. I share his doubts about a process that could write off their hopes for 2016 on that basis. I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on that.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again; she is being very generous. On the hoops for health programme, I appreciate that Sport England does not give funding for that age group. Does she agree, however, that Sport England should recognise that the funding and effort that goes in at that younger age produces the athletes of the future, and that without it they cannot become elite players?

Sharon Hodgson: That is the key point, which I will move on to. We were promised that the London Olympics would inspire a generation, but which part of that generation are we going to inspire? That question matters because how we distribute that money for sport—whoever is distributing it and under whichever rules—says a lot
	about what sort of society we want to be. UK Sport’s no compromise policy inadvertently, yet knowingly, punishes team sports for being accessible, as they are more globally competitive.

Hugh Robertson: rose—

Sharon Hodgson: If the Minister could hear my point out. If a sport is more globally competitive, the medal hopes for Team GB will be lower. I applaud the successes of sports such as rowing, sailing and equestrian—obviously, we all do—but we need to find a balance between rewarding “easier” success on a global level and taking into consideration the wider societal positives that accessible team sports, such as basketball, provide to our local communities.

Hugh Robertson: I am terribly sorry, but I cannot let the hon. Lady get away with saying that it is easier to win a gold medal at rowing or sailing than it is for basketball. [Interruption.] She did definitely say that we should not fund sports that are easier to get a medal in. She should see the sheer exertion that young men and women go through to win a rowing gold medal—they are up at six o’clock every morning, day in, day out. I appreciate her concerns, but it is unfair to run down other sports on the back of them. She did say that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are in danger of straying off the point. The debate is purely about funding for basketball. I understand that there will be examples, but I think we have taken the example a little bit beyond where we should be. I am sure that the hon. Lady will come right back on the subject of funding for basketball.

Sharon Hodgson: The wider point I was making was about the global accessibility of basketball. I was not decrying any sports, but globally there are fewer people playing a sport such as clay pigeon shooting, so it may be easier, in the sense of numbers, to win a medal at that sport—there are not as many competitors, because it is not as accessible. Perhaps I did not explain it correctly.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Maybe I could be helpful and say that we are not comparing like with like. That is the danger in where we are going. I want to get back to where we should be.

Sharon Hodgson: Thank you ever so much, Mr Deputy Speaker. You certainly made the point I was trying to make and I thank you for that.
	I admit that it may be a difficult task to get a medal in Rio but, when we look at how far basketball has come in just six years, it is by no means impossible. More importantly, how much will not having at least a decent showing in Rio further damage a sport that is also suffering from cutbacks in grass-roots and talent funding?
	All we are looking for is fairness: fairness for the young boy or girl in Sunderland, Newcastle, Merseyside, Leicester, Chester, Plymouth and so on who loves basketball because it is of the cities and of the street. It is cool and it is urban, and they idolise basketball
	superstars across the world from other countries because our national team is not as prominent as it should and could be.
	I would like to end by quoting Luol Deng’s letter to the Prime Minister, which the hon. Member for City of Chester mentioned. With the indulgence of the House, I shall read it into the record, seeing as we have a few minutes to spare:
	“Dear Prime Minister,
	I am writing to you following the news that we, as Team GB, have had our funding completely cut which has been deeply upsetting and confusing to say the least.
	My initial reaction was to try and understand why and how if by any means I could help to change this. The UK has given so much to my family and I, the honour and pride I’ve felt to play for Team GB over the last 5 years has been something words really can’t explain. Looking back to when we started, it’s incredible how far the team has come; so many people have worked too hard for this to happen now.
	I truly feel like we are starting to put British Basketball on the map and we are now being taken seriously on the world stage. Taking myself and the other guys out of the equation, what about the future generation? Do not underestimate the fan base that this sport has in the UK. It’s a sport that kids can relate to and a sport that should be easily accessible when all you need is some concrete, two hoops and a ball! We all heard about the ‘legacy’ that London 2012 was going to bring to sport in the UK and I refuse to sit back and let that legacy be completely demolished for basketball. I along with thousands of other people involved with the game have put too much in and care too greatly to let this happen.”

Oliver Colvile: Does the hon. Lady recognise the importance of media interest? I must declare an interest in that my brother is a cricket commentator for Sky TV. That broadcaster has invested a lot of money and effort in grass-roots sport, especially among youngsters, and, in places such as Plymouth, which has a brilliant cricket club, has done an enormous amount of very good work.

Sharon Hodgson: I agree, and I hope that media interest will be raised by this debate.
	The hon. Gentleman’s intervention came in the middle of Luol Deng’s letter, so I shall return to it. It will look rather odd in Hansard, I am sure, but if you will bear with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue:
	“My UK Foundation aims to help basketball, to help people not only get into the sport but to also help those more capable players develop their skills and achieve their goals of becoming a professional player. The sport of basketball is a pathway, a pathway that teaches so many valuable lessons on and off the court, how are we supposed to motivate these kids to carry along their journey when there’s now nothing at the end? No Team GB, no Olympic dream, no goal. You’re allowing a sport to be greatly harmed; a sport that can bring so much to so many and I won’t accept it. The sport needs more input from other resources I totally agree, but then let’s force the sport as a whole to live up to its promises and its potential but we need this funding in order for that to happen. As I said I get to see first hand what this sport can do for kids in the UK and it’s too valuable to just be chucked away.
	There is a petition being circulated, which I have signed”—
	I have signed it, too—
	“and will encourage as many people as I can to do the same. I’ve been told about and shown examples of other letters that you and other members will have received detailing all the facts and figures relevant to the growth of the sport, of which there are many, but I wanted you to hear first hand from someone who came through the grass roots basketball system and from someone who knows what talent the UK has to offer in the sport of basketball. I also want to share with you one fact that I was given
	when this news came out—basketball participation for 11-15 year olds is at 27% which is 2nd only to football, this is the time to be supporting such a statistic not wiping it out.
	I have asked that this letter also be sent to everyone connected to the decision and next week’s appeal with UK Sport. Again, too much has been achieved for this to happen.
	I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.
	Kind regards,
	Luol Deng”.
	That is quite a powerful letter from a world-famous sportsman. I hope that the Minister will give back to everyone involved in basketball in Great Britain their Olympic dream.

Bob Russell: Very briefly, I would like to put on record my appreciation for my constituents Mr John Lloyd and his son Mr Mark Lloyd, who over the years have contributed nationally and locally to the development, growth and success of basketball. On their behalf, I hope that they will be able to continue doing that.
	One of the great delights in last year’s Olympics was the breadth of sports in which Britain won medals. We won medals at sports in which, only a few Olympics back, Britain’s participants did their best, but never came within a whisker of winning a medal. It is a credit to the Olympic movement in this country that that breadth of sports has developed.
	Let me finish on the point I raised in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). To my mind, the Olympic legacy is the participation of as many young people as possible in sport. We all know that basketball, with a court set up in the corner of a playing field or across the full pitch, attracts youngsters in numbers, particularly in urban communities. If there are international and national figures whom they can look up to and aspire to be, the pyramid of participation will widen. Whatever the sport, the wider the base of the sporting pyramid, the better chance we have of seeing the pinnacle—the elite athlete—come through. Therefore, the withdrawal of funding is short-sighted. We only have to compare our record in the London Olympics with what happened five, six or seven Olympics back to see how dramatically Britain’s sporting success has increased across the spectrum. To a large extent that is about funding, as well as the enthusiasm of the various sporting organisations. I hope it will be possible for those responsible for funding basketball to realise that mass participation is part of the Olympic legacy for our young people.

George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on initiating this debate, which is timely and important for basketball in this country.
	I should declare several interests, none of which is remunerated. First, I am a trustee of the British Basketball League Foundation, which the hon. Gentleman chairs. Secondly, I am a member of the all-party basketball group, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) chairs. Thirdly, I am a supporter of the Mersey Tigers—which was a great thing to do two seasons ago, as they won every bit
	of silverware in sight. Sadly, they have since been less successful, mainly as a result of financial difficulties. Last but by no means least, my grandson Luke plays basketball for his school and for a non-school side in the area. In fact, he played earlier this evening—unfortunately I have no idea what the outcome of the game was, because he has not sent me a text. I therefore have a number of reasons, both personal and to do with my involvement with various bodies, to support basketball.
	I want to make three points—I will try to be brief. The first is a general point—it has been made by several hon. Friends, as well as the hon. Member for City of Chester—about the impact that the sport can have on specific communities. Basketball is a very inclusive sport. People do not have to have a lot of expensive equipment to play basketball or be associated with a club that might have difficult membership requirements; nor does it require massive support—it does require support, but not massive support—at the grass-roots level.
	A further point that has been made is that young participants, male and female, gain great health benefits from their involvement in the sport, no matter what level they play at. A number of health authorities of one kind or another have recognised that and have supported clubs that have been successful in building up grass-roots support. If we are to be successful in basketball nationally and internationally, the first requirement will be to build up that grass-roots support. Nothing comes from nothing, and we will succeed at elite level only if we can get youngsters from the ages of eight, nine and 10 onwards to participate in the sport. That model has worked well in other sports, and it is no different for basketball, except that basketball reaches parts of the community that other sports might not.
	That is not just my opinion as a Member of Parliament or as a grandfather with an involvement in the sport. If we look at the successful clubs—particularly Leicester and Newcastle, but also the Cheshire Jets—we see that they are sustained by the activity that takes place at grass-roots level, especially among young people. That is particularly important, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is the kind of successful model that we want to build.

Stephen Mosley: The right hon. Gentleman will probably be aware of the problems that the Cheshire Jets had, and of the launch of a new club, Cheshire Phoenix, in November. The new club has real community support: it is community owned and community based, and it took a real team effort from the entire city and county to get it going. It is a brand new club with huge aspirations and a huge amount of support. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the support that those other clubs have, but Cheshire Phoenix has it as well.

George Howarth: I must inadvertently have referred to the team as the Cheshire Jets, because I was aware of the developments that had taken place. I wish the Mersey Tigers well, but I hope that Cheshire Phoenix does well too. We are all from more or less the same part of the world.
	The successful clubs demonstrate the fact that, with vibrant grass-roots support, it is possible to build a successful professional club and that, beyond that, we can build a successful national sport and perform well internationally. That brings me to my point about the
	decision, based on the estimate of our Olympic prospects in Brazil, which I think was wrong. I do not intend to labour the point, but I hope that those responsible will revisit the subject, because if they do, they will recognise that the route to qualifying for Brazil includes European qualification, and that there is a demonstrably strong chance that the UK team could qualify by going down that route. The team’s potential for qualification has been underestimated. I understand that the issue of governance has also been raised, but I have yet to receive any explanation of why that might be the case. The Minister and I had a brief discussion about this last week, and I hope that we will be able to find out more about what is at issue. There might have been a misreading of the true situation in the sport.
	I know that the Minister cares passionately about sport, and that he is a fair-minded man. I also know—because he told me so—that his powers of intervention are limited in these matters. I accept that, but he does have considerable influence and I hope that he will use that to question the basis on which some of those decisions have been made. I also hope that, in a quiet and unassuming but effective way, he will be able to encourage those responsible to reconsider their decision as a matter of urgency.

Hugh Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he presented his case. This was actually going to be the third thing I intended to say, but it is probably worth saying it now. I shall proceed with certain amount of caution tonight. The appeal is due in front of the UK Sport board—on Wednesday, I believe—but that, in any event, is not the end of the process, as there are a number of further hurdles over which progress could be made. If the terms of the appeal are right—many points made tonight will, I suspect, form part of the appeal—it strikes me that there will be a case that will provoke some further thought. Let me go no further than that. Tonight’s debate does come at a slightly delicate moment.
	I have a couple of other points to frame my remarks before I answer some of the specific questions raised. First, it is important—I hope hon. Members will forgive me for making this point—to frame this debate against the fact that this system works. This country’s elite performance system is the envy of almost every other Olympic system in the world. Back in Sydney, we were 10th in the medal table with 28 medals; here we are in London, 12 years later, third with 65 medals. The Australians would kill for this sort of system, as would many others. People in this country are looking at how we did it and trying to work out the processes we adopted. I know from talking to many Australians that they feel they will have to be much tougher and come far closer to our no-compromise approach if they are to catch up some of the ground they feel they have lost.
	I was talking to a forum of performance directors this morning. Knowing that I would be responding to this Adjournment debate, I said, “Let me road test this on you. Have we got this right? Have we gone too far, and do we need to crank it back?” They said, “Absolutely
	not.” They felt that the way the funding awards were made this year was the fairest and most robust method they had been put through. These were performance directors who had done this for a number of years, and they had nothing but praise for the way in which they had been guided through the system by UK Sport and the results that had been reached. I absolutely understand the passion expressed about a sport for which many Members deeply care, but that needs to be balanced with the fact that the performance system for a country of our size has just produced 65 medals and third place in the Olympic medal table. That is an extraordinary success by anybody’s standards.
	Let me deal quickly with a couple of other points. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) is absolutely correct: I can set the overall strategy for UK Sport, and indeed I do, but it is not up to me to make individual funding decisions within that, because about two thirds of the money that goes to any of these funding awards is lottery money. As anyone who has been in this House for any length of time will know, that is not for Ministers to direct.
	My other point is that funding, although I would wish it otherwise in this area, is not inexhaustible. We have done very well to increase the overall budget for Olympic and Paralympic sport by 11%—the only host nation ever to achieve that—and for the Rio cycle, but that does not mean that we can avoid taking tough decisions. This has been one of them. Having been through the decision-making process with UK Sport—it took me through it and Sport England was there, too, so we could look at both funding settlements together—I know it has a chart, and the question is about the point at which we slice up and down the funding pole. That is done by UK Sport on the basis of medal success in Rio.
	Let me run through the various issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. He asked whether I had met UK Sport, and indeed Sport England. I see both chief executives every month, and I spent close to three hours with both organisations going through the two funding awards.
	Although I take on board the comments that have been made, UK Sport made the decision on the basis that basketball had failed to demonstrate a realistic chance of qualifying for Rio 2016, or medal potential for 2020. Basketball may be on a fast improving pathway, but the men’s and women’s teams won only one of the 10 games that they contested at the London Olympics, which is not a great performance record.
	How are such decisions made? GB Basketball puts a submission forward that goes to UK Sport, and it is then considered by a performance panel with independents on it. Each and every aspect is considered. Other performance directors I spoke to today said that was the best iteration they had been through in a number of cycles. The process is incredibly detailed, and considers not only medal potential for Rio but for 2020. For Rio, the line was drawn at a point where the basketball team needed to medal, which might explain the slight discrepancy in relation to qualification.
	On the governance structure, it might be easier to nail down the issues in writing. I have been involved in sport as a politician since 2004 when the Conservative party was in opposition. Throughout that time, basketball has been a frustration because it has obvious and enormous potential, as many of the contributions to this debate
	have acknowledged. It is a sport that can reach into communities in a way that some other sports cannot, yet it somehow fails to catch alight. That may be because people who play basketball do not always respond to the active people survey, so participation levels are underplayed. There may also have been weaknesses in the structure of the sport.
	Netball is a fantastic example of a sport that, from difficult beginnings, has increased its participation base extraordinarily. I have visited schemes run for school- gate mothers in places such as Leicester, to try to get more young women back into the sport. As a result, netball has been rewarded with a considerable increase in funding.
	The key question is: what does basketball need to do? I have not yet met him, but I am told that there is a very good new independent chairman. A huge amount of fuss and bother is what impresses people least, so the best thing he can do is take a long, hard, clinical look at the sport of basketball—I hope that many of the hon. Members who have shown enthusiasm for the sport in the debate tonight will play a part—and look at team sports that have tackled this situation successfully. He should look at how cycling has put half a million people on its performance base, and at what netball, a team sport, has done. There must be some transferable lessons from netball to basketball. There is enormous performance-based expertise, which has driven this country from 10th in the medal table to third, so he should make use of the experts in academia and UK Sport, and turn the sport inside out.
	There is this hope: although the initial funding decisions have been made and announced, there is an appeal process, and if basketball presents the right case, it will have a perfectly good chance of securing funding. This is not the end of the story, and if the basketball team starts to perform and show that it is likely to qualify, and has the chance of a medal in 2016 or 2020, wherever that turns out to be after the IOC decision this summer, there will be the opportunity to fund it.
	I leave the House with the story of gymnastics. I have seen representatives of that sport recently. Its funding was cut—almost completely removed—after a disastrous Olympics in Athens, where the competitors were basically washed out. Gymnastics is a different sport from basketball, but its position is not entirely different. Those people went back and engaged in a long “dig-out” to discover what was required to ensure that the young athletes whom we all see in gyms in our constituencies could turn into Olympic medal-winners in the future. They turned the sport inside out, and established a really
	tough performance-based culture. The result was plain to see in London, where gymnastics was not only one of the great successes, but arguably one of the most unexpected.
	As for the social aspect, I entirely accept the point about basketball’s social reach. However, we do not confine our funding to sports that have a reach of that kind, such as athletics, cycling and, in particular, boxing, which was one of the great successes of London 2012 and which has a huge reach into deprived communities in inner cities. I can reassure Members that UK Sport makes its decisions on the basis of performance.

George Howarth: I have been involved—not as a politician—in amateur boxing for a number of years in my constituency. In many ways the comparison made by the Minister is a good one, but the difference between amateur boxing and basketball is that most local clubs are long-established and have a lengthy tradition on which to draw, whereas basketball is in the process of getting there, but is not there yet.

Hugh Robertson: That is a fair point. I suspect that it backs up the one I made earlier about the need to take a long hard look at the structure and get it absolutely right. Incidentally, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s grandson won his game, and that, if he did, the right hon. Gentleman will convey all our best wishes to him.
	Let me end where I started. I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester on initiating the debate, and congratulate him on his speech. I also congratulate all the other Members who have spoken.
	I want sport in this country to be successful, and I want basketball to be as successful as rowing, cycling, sailing or of any of the other more obviously successful Olympic sports. It would probably be overdoing it to be say that basketball has had a troubled past, but the fact that it has not taken off has been a source of great frustration to all of us who are involved in it. However, it occurs to me that this may be a moment of opportunity. I am sure that if the new chairman is really prepared to take on the task of sorting out the governance of the sport and ensuring that there are people who understand participation and the performance expertise that drives success at the top end, and if he can take that case to UK Sport and prove that we have a good chance of medalling in basketball in Rio or in the 2020 games, UK Sport will reconsider its decision.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.